V.K. Shukla, J.;— Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the validity of the order dated 26.07.2008 passed by Licensing Authority and order of its affirmance in Appeal passed by Appellate Forum proceeding to cancel the fair price shop agency of the petitioner. Petitioner has been having fair price shop agency situated at Khara Pariyojana village Panchayat- Badshahibag (Mayapur) Block Sadhauli Kadeem, Tehsil Behat, District Saharanpur. In respect of illegal distribution of essential commodities complaint has been made against the petitioner by Asgar Alam claiming himself to be President of World Consumer Organization India. On the said complaint being made Supply Inspector was asked by District Supply Officer to conduct inquiry. Supply Inspector conducted inquiry and found that shop on question was lying closed and the Card holders at the said point of time raised serious complaint in respect of essential commodities. Based on the said report so submitted suspension order was passed and charge-sheet was issued. Petitioner submitted her reply on 30.06.2008 and thereafter order of cancellation has been passed on 26.07.2008. Aggrieved petitioner preferred Appeal and same has also been dismissed. Pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and thereafter present writ petition has been taken up final hearing and disposal. Sri Chetan Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case no opportunity whatsoever has been given and order of cancellation has already been passed on 28.04.2008 when order of suspension has been passed as such entire proceedings are in violation of principle of natural justice. Countering said submission the learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that reasonable opportunity has been afforded and petitioner availed the same and did no produce any material to rebut the charges described in charge sheet as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case that order of suspension has been passed on 28.04.2008 and it was followed by the charge sheet of the same date. This is accepted position that petitioner submitted her reply to the said charge sheet on 30.06.2008. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case that order of suspension has been passed on 28.04.2008 and it was followed by the charge sheet of the same date. This is accepted position that petitioner submitted her reply to the said charge sheet on 30.06.2008. Categorical averments have been made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of State in regard of filing of reply and said averments have not at all been disputed in rejoinder affidavit so filed specifically and thus, this is accepted position that reply has been submitted by the petitioner on 30.06.2008 and then to say that reasonable opportunity has not been extended cannot be accepted. In the present case Licensing Authority, reply submitted by the petitioner has been considered extenso and Licensing Authority has found that petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate distribution of essential commodities and even relevant record of the distribution has not at all been produced. Once this is the factual situation that charge sheet has been given to the petitioner on 28.04.2008 and petitioner submitted her reply on 30.06.2008 and same has not at all been supported by any document to show and substantiate that distribution has been carried out in lawful manner, in such a situation once objective consideration has been done by Licensing Authority rightful order has been passed by Licensing Authority and same has been affirmed by Appellate Authority then there is no manifest illegality. Much capital has been sought to be made of the fact that order passed by Licensing Authority at page 31 of the paper book refers letter dated 26.04.2008 and based on the same it has been contended that order of suspension and cancellation has been passed on the same date as such affording of opportunity is merely formality. Reference of letter dated 28.04.2008 is in reference to suspension/charge sheet given to the petitioner and the order of cancellation itself has been passed on 26.07.2008, with different letter number and same proceeds to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner dated 30.06.2008 in extenso. Thus, arguments, advanced on this score lacks substance and is devoid of substance. Consequently, present writ petition is dismissed. _____________