JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J.- Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 22.03.2010 (Annexure P/6). The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P/7 dated 30.04.2010. Thereafter respondent, passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/2) whereby the petitioner's allotment of Fair Price Shop was cancelled. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order preferred an appeal Annexure P/9 which was also rejected by appellate authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 10.11.2010. Against Annexures P/1 and P/2, this writ petition is filed. Shri Bahirani learned counsel for the petitioner submits that show cfuse notice is vague and ambiguous. No details are mentioned as to when petitioner has not allegedly distributed Kerosene/Food Grains/Sugar. No details are mentioned about the alleged incorrect and frivolous entries in Ration Card. He further submits that the petitioner I has assigned detail reasons in hio reply (Annexure P/7) which has not been considered in Annexure P/2. Shri Bahirani submits that the competent authority by order dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure P/2) has merely stated that the petitioner's reply is not satisfactory. No reasons are assigned by the said authority as to why the reply was not found satisfactory. It is true, that show cause notice is ambiguous and vague in nature. In absence of clear allegation with precision and accuracy, the said notice falls short of the requirement of a valid notice in consonance with principles of natural justice. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the show cauae notice Annexure P/6 is vague and ambiguous show cause notice. Petitioner submits that the detail reply has been filed, however in Annexure P/2 a bald finding is given that the reply is not found to be Org satisfactory. This is settled in law that the reasons are heart beats of conclusion. In absence of reasons, the conclusions are like house of cards. Accordingly, Annexure P/2 is bad in law because no reasons are assigned by the authority while rejecting the petitioner's reply. Apart from this, perusal of the record no where indicates that the alleged statements were recorded in the presence of the petitioner. It is also clear from the perusal of the judgment that the petitioner had no opportunity to Ad cross-examine the said witness. Accordingly, this exercise also runs contrary to the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. The competent and appellate authority have relied on the material and statement collected behind the back of the petitioner. It is also clear from the perusal of the judgment that the petitioner had no opportunity to Ad cross-examine the said witness. Accordingly, this exercise also runs contrary to the principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. The competent and appellate authority have relied on the material and statement collected behind the back of the petitioner. Appellate authority has also not dealt with the grounds raised in appeal Annexure P/9. In the result Annexures P/1 and P/2 cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and are hereby set aside. However, respondents are at liberty to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with law.