V.K. Shukla, J;— In the present case petitioner has been fair price shop licensee. On Tehsil Divas complaint was made before District Magistrate in respect of illegality being committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. District Magistrate after receiving said complaint being made asked Senior Marketing Inspector and the Revenue Inspector to conduct joint inspection. Said inspecting team conducted inspection and thereafter submitted its report levelling four charges against the petitioner. Licensing Authority in its wisdom proceeded to pass order of suspension and also asked petitioner to submit his reply. Petitioner thereafter submitted his reply which has been filed Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It appears after the said reply has been filed petitioner moved application on 24.10.2008 before the Licensing Authority requesting therein that earlier inquiry report submitted was exparte as such fresh inquiry be conducted. On the said application being moved Tehsildar Amroha has made spot inspection and submitted report and based on the said report order of cancellation has been passed. Aggrieved petitioner preferred appeal and the said appeal has also been dismissed on 18.05.2009. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. Pleadings inter se parties in the shape of counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged and thereafter present matter has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. Sri Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that reasonable opportunity as envisaged for has not at all been provided to the petitioner, as such action taken is vitiated and orders impugned are liable to be quashed. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that rightful action has been taken and no interference should be made. After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which has emerged that order of suspension was passed levelling four charges and petitioner was asked to submit his reply. Qua the said charges petitioner vide Annexure-2 submitted reply and in paragraph-1 of the reply so submitted came out with specific case that BPL card holders were not eligible as such at block level their cards have been cancelled and they are not entitled to receive essential commodities by virtue of BPL card holders. In respect of charge no. Qua the said charges petitioner vide Annexure-2 submitted reply and in paragraph-1 of the reply so submitted came out with specific case that BPL card holders were not eligible as such at block level their cards have been cancelled and they are not entitled to receive essential commodities by virtue of BPL card holders. In respect of charge no. 2 in paragraph-2 of the reply it was mentioned that said card holders never came to collect essential commodities and their essential commodities is lying in the shop in question. In respect of charge no. 3 it has also specifically been contended that cards holder have not come to collect kerosene oil and their kerosene oil is available in the stock. In respect of charge no. 4 it has been contended that in respect of BPL and Anntodya cards holders list was not available as such same has not been produced. However list has been published on the shop. After the said reply has been submitted on 24.10.2010 request has been made for re-investigation in the matter. Said request has been accepted and Tehsildar, Amroha was again asked to make spot inspection. Tehsildar Amroha from the record it is reflected made spot inspection and report has been submitted and thereafter straight away order has been passed. Thus, it is writ apparent after re-inspection being carried out by the Tehsildar, Amroha by making spot inspection adverse report was submitted to the petitioner and copy of the same at no point of time has ever been supplied to the petitioner. In the order of Licensing Authority nowhere it is reflected that earlier reply submitted by the petitioner has been adverted to. Coupled with this second inquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar Amroha has not at all been supplied to the petitioner. Such facts and circumstances clearly reflect that action taken against the petitioner is without averting the reply so submitted by the petitioner and thereafter report which has been so submitted and which has been relied up for passing of the order impugned against the petitioner, copy of the same has not at all been supplied to the petitioner. In such a situation and in this background decision making process cannot be approved of as taken by Licensing Authority and as affirmed by Appellate forum. In such a situation and in this background decision making process cannot be approved of as taken by Licensing Authority and as affirmed by Appellate forum. Consequently, order dated 25.11.20098 passed by Licensing Authority and the order dated 18.05.2009 passed by Commissioner Moradabad Mandal Moradabad are hereby quashed and set aside. Licensing authority is directed to pass fresh order after supplying copy of inquiry report submitted by the Tehsildar Amroha and within four months from the date of presentation of certified copy of the order passed by this Court. With the above observations and direction present writ petition is allowed. _____________