JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard V.C. Misra, learned senior counsel alongwith Sri Haribansh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) passed by the District Supply Officer, Muzaffar Nagar as also the order dated 12.4.2005 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Food) on the appeal/representation No. 66 of 2005 made by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the impugned order the Respondent No. 2 has on the basis of lodging of an F.I.R. suspended the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner and has attached the supply with the persons mentioned in the impugned order dated 8.8.2000. Learned counsel has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed without any show-cause notice and without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and secondly on the ground that mere lodging of an F.I.R. against the petitioner could not be a ground to suspend the supply of the petitioner. His other ground is that in absence of suspension of the fair price shop license or cancellation of the fair price shop license the respondent could not suspend the supply and keep the matter pending indefinitely. 4. He has assailed the appellate order by saying that the appellate authority has wrongly rejected his appeal by holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in the case of “Smt. Raj Kumari Singh v. State of U.P. and others”, 2011(3) ADJ 638 (DB), to state that the fair price shop license cannot be cancelled merely on filing of an F.I.R. and therefore the impugned order being without application of mind requires to be set aside. 6. 6. He has also placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of “Gulab Chandra Ram v. State of U.P. and others”, 2009(2) ADJ 521 (DB), to state that when an order passed canceling the fair price shop license, is in violation of principle of natural justice and the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 the same cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside. 7. He has further placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of “Shiv Raj Singh v. State of U.P. and others”, 2006(8) ADJ 645 (DB), to state that when no notice was given before passing of the suspension order and the inquiry is not being completed within one month as required under the Government Order the suspension order automatically ceased and is deemed to have been revoked. 8. He has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in the case of “Naumi Ram v. Deputy Collector, Azamgarh and others”, 2001(1) ALJ 332, to state that supply of food grains cannot be stopped by the authority only on the basis of mere allegation or complaint, particularly, when no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. 9. He has lastly placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and others”, 2004 All CJ 208, to state that the right to reputation is right to live and failure to comply with the principal of natural justice render the action non-est. 10. Learned Standing Counsel has justified the impugned order by saying that neither the license of the petitioner has been suspended nor cancelled and only the supply has been stopped for the allegations made therein. He places reliance on his counter-affidavit to state that during pendency of the investigation under the F.I.R. the supply has been suspended and as soon as the Case No. 87 of 2002 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Muzaffar Nagar, is decided, the authority will take a decision in accordance with law on the said allegations. 11. He places reliance on his counter-affidavit to state that during pendency of the investigation under the F.I.R. the supply has been suspended and as soon as the Case No. 87 of 2002 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Muzaffar Nagar, is decided, the authority will take a decision in accordance with law on the said allegations. 11. Insofar the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle of natural justice has been violated when no notice has been given to the petitioner is concerned, the fact of the case establishes that no notice was given prior to stopping the supply of the petitioner. The fact that supply has been stopped only because of lodging of an F.I.R. and that his license has not been suspended nor it has been cancelled is also borne out from the record. The respondent has also admitted such fact and in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the matter in pursuance of the F.I.R. is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Muzaffar Nagar and, therefore, upon conclusion of the said proceedings necessary orders, if any, will be passed by the authority. 12. Insofar as the impugned order dated 8.8.2000 is concerned, the allegation made therein is that without depositing the amount in the bank, the petitioner produced a forged deposit slip of the bank and picked up the essential commodities from the godown which is a forgery and is sufficient to suspend the supply of the petitioner. To this the petitioner has referred to Annexure No. 5 of the supplementary affidavit which is an opinion of the DGC (Civil) and has submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount for the supply lifted by him and he has already deposited Rs. 6 lakhs with respect to a part of supply lifted by him and is ready to deposit the balance of Rs. 36 lakhs. 13. The recitation in the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has submitted forged deposit slip of the bank to lift the supply. 6 lakhs with respect to a part of supply lifted by him and is ready to deposit the balance of Rs. 36 lakhs. 13. The recitation in the impugned order indicates that the petitioner has submitted forged deposit slip of the bank to lift the supply. The petitioner admittedly lifted the supply on the basis of forged deposit slip produced by him, therefore, insofar as his agreeing to deposit the amount for the lifted essential commodities is concerned, that is a stand taken after forgery has been committed hence he cannot deny that he did commit forgery by depositing a forged deposit slip of the bank. Once forgery has been committed any amount of justification given for it or trying to say that he will deposit the amount cannot absolve the petitioner from the forgery committed by him. 14. The fair price shop license has not been cancelled nor it has been suspended. One of the argument is that there is no power with the authority to suspend the supply under the Government Order or the rules/guidelines applicable for running a fair price shop. The submission is that there is power of suspension or cancellation. Insofar as the above submission is concerned, there is no doubt that there is power of suspension and cancellation of the fair price shop license which has not been exercised in the present case but what the authority has done is that it has suspended the supply of essential commodities for the reason of forgery and that an F.I.R. has been lodged and the matter is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Muzaffar Nagar, in Case No. 87 of 2000. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the supplies have been stopped and the authority will consider the resumption of supply or proceedings for cancellation or suspension of the shop in question after the case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Muzaffar Nagar has concluded. 15. The decision in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (Supra) related to cancellation of the fair price shop dealership merely on filing of an F.I.R. In the present case the fair price shop of the petitioner has not been cancelled hence no benefit can be given to the petitioner. 16. In the case of Gulab Chand Ram (Supra) the cancellation of license was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 16. In the case of Gulab Chand Ram (Supra) the cancellation of license was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of the petitioner his license has not been cancelled hence the question is quite different. 17. In Shiv Raj Singh (Supra) the license was suspended without giving any notice and the time schedule for completing the enquiry was not adhered to. In the petitioner’s case there is no order of suspension of license nor any enquiry is being held by the Respondent No. 2 as yet. 18. In Naumi Ram (Supra) a complaint was made with certain allegations and supply of essential commodities was stopped. The Court held that mere complaint with allegations is not sufficient to stop supply particularly when there is no power to stop supply of essential commodities. 19. The Supreme Court in the case of Lal Krishna Advani (Supra) held that failure to comply with the principles of natural justice would render the action non-est. It was dealing with a case under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. 20. When all these above facts and law are taken into account then while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court cannot ignore where there is allegation of forgery. Applying the principle of natural justice in a case of forgery where an F.I.R. has been lodged would be an unnatural expansion of the principle of natural justice for giving benefit to a person. 21. The Supreme Court in the case of Jharu Ram Roy v. Kainjit Roy and others, 2010(2) AWC 2003, while dealing with a case under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts. In the cases of State of Punjab v. Jagdish Singh, AIR 1964 SC 521 ; Champak Lal v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 ; State of Bombay v. Sanbhghad, AIR 1957 SC 892 and in R. Vishwanath Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2004(1) UPLBEC 507, it was held that if benefit is obtained by committing fraud then the authorities are not obliged to comply the principles of natural justice before cancelling the advantage obtained by such fraud. In the cases of U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. In the cases of U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwari, AIR 1991 SC 909 and in Krishna Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1994 SC 2166 , it was held that fraud vitiates everything. 22. Therefore when the petitioner has played fraud by producing forged deposit receipt of the bank and taken supply of essential commodities from the godown to the extent of nearly Rs. Forty Two lakhs then all his solemn acts now being canvassed are vitiated due to the fraud committed by him. He cannot be permitted to be spared of the fraud committed by him even if now he deposits the amount. Once his fraud was detected the authorities were not obliged to comply with the principles of natural justice otherwise it would amount to the expansion of the principle not to ensure justice but to protect an action of fraud. That cannot be a call envisaged in the concept of the principles of natural justice. 23. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, where on the one hand the petitioner cannot be deprived of conducting his business without any suspension or cancellation of his fair price shop but he also cannot be permitted to go scot free after having committed a fraud. 24. Therefore, while upholding the imputation in the impugned order to that extent it is held that stopping the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner was not an act which was required to be done only under a power conferred but because there was fraud committed by the petitioner hence the doctrine or principle ‘fraud vitiates the most solemn act’ came into play and the action of the respondents in passing the impugned order cannot be held to be against law or guidelines as contained in the Government order. 25. This writ petition is disposed of finally by requiring the Sub Divisional Officer, Muzaffar Nagar (Respondent No. 2) to consider the defence of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity and while doing so the Respondent No. 2 must also take a decision as to whether the license of the petitioner requires to be suspended or cancelled for the aforesaid reason. The writ petition is finally disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. ——————