JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the S.D.M., Sadar by which the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled against which an appeal was filed and the appellate authority has also in appeal No. 15 of 2002-03 rejected the claim of the petitioner holding that under the agreement or contract in view of clause (16) of Government Order, the licence can be cancelled by the concerned authority without any prior notice. 2. The petitioner was granted licence for the fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Alampur Gajraula. It is stated that on a particular date on Tehsil Diwas various card holders of the concerned Gram Panchayat had gathered and raised complaint against the petitioner. Upon asking them by the concerned authorities that whether licence of the petitioner should be cancelled, they unanimously raised their hands for cancellation. It is also indicated in the order that earlier also complaints were received against which an enquiry was conducted and in the enquiry it was found that the petitioner was distributing 10 kgs of grain less than the prescribed quota and was also over charging for the same. 3. The concerned authority, that is, S.D.M. on the basis of some enquiry held earlier and on the basis of complaint as raised before him on the Tehsil Diwas on his motion without calling for any explanation from the petitioner cancelled the licence of the petitioner exercising power purported to be under clause (16) of the relevant Government Order which states that a licence can be cancelled by the concerned authority without any prior notice to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal as provided under the Government Order and the appeal has also been rejected on the same ground, i.e., clause (16) of the Government order. Aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court on 19.2.2004 while requiring the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit directed that if in the meantime no licensee has been appointed, it shall not be appointed. This order continued. However, unfortunately the writ petition itself was dismissed in default on 5.8.2010 but the same was also restored on 28.9.2011. 5. This order continued. However, unfortunately the writ petition itself was dismissed in default on 5.8.2010 but the same was also restored on 28.9.2011. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no other allotment has been made in respect of any other person and, therefore, the order being in violation of principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside and the licence of the petitioner is required to be revived. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents in his counter-affidavit somehow has tried to justify the aforesaid order stating therein that the petitioner is merely an agent of State for distribution of essential commodities and is bound under the contract and the contract also contains a clause that the said licence can be cancelled without any prior notice by the concerned authority and, therefore, there is no illegality in the order. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 8. This Court as well as the Apex Court has consistently held that any order which is punitive in nature in any way has to be passed only after complying with the principles of natural justice. 9. In the present case the order speaks for itself that upon raising of the hands of the villagers present at the Tehsil Diwas, the S.D.M. concerned has cancelled the licence and no where in the order passed by the S.D.M. as well as the appellate authority it can be inferred that any opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to explain his conduct. It is true that when the entire village stood up against the petitioner, it is a matter of concern and it does create a doubt about the efficiency of the petitioner as licensee.In such a case it was incumbent upon the said authority to act in all fairness and ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to explain his conduct. But that not being done, apparently the oder of cancellation of licence by the S.D.M., Sadar and of the appellate authority is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice as established by law by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 10. But that not being done, apparently the oder of cancellation of licence by the S.D.M., Sadar and of the appellate authority is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice as established by law by this Court as well as the Apex Court. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(10) ADJ 610 (DB), wherein this Court has categorically held that before passing any order of cancellation opportunity has necessarily to be given. 11. Any provision of law or any contract by the State authority if it does not provide of any opportunity to be given to the person upon whom punitive order is to be passed then such contracts are prima facie in contravention of principles of natural justice. 12. In the present case as has been held above, no opportunity was given to the petitioner, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the order has necessarily to be set aside and quashed. 13. However, since much period has lapsed since cancellation of the licence and the writ petition was also dismissed in the mean time although restored later, the authorities concerned are directed to pass a fresh order and in case no other person has been appointed in the mean time and the petitioner fulfills all the criterion as on today, he will consider his claim. 14. So far as the illegal cancellation of the licence of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner can approach the relevant forum for claiming damages or compensation. 15. The writ petition is thus allowed. ——————