JUDGMENT 1. - Instant intra-court appeal has been preferred by appellant-petitioner assailing the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 4th February, 2013. 2. Counsel for appellant submits that the appellant-Society was appointed to run a fair price shop for Gram Panchayat Gahendi vide order dated 1st March, 2012 and authorisation of appellant was cancelled by the respondent vide order dated 21st May, 2012 without making compliance of Clause (8) of the Rajasthan Food Grains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 which clearly postulates that before taking any action, either to suspend or for cancellation of the order of authorization, a notice has to be served on the incumbent and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing, action can be taken as permissible under law, which the respondents failed to comply with before the impugned order dated 21st May, 2012 was passed by the respondents. 3. Counsel for appellant further submits that the ld.Single Judge has taken note of the prayer made in the writ petition but no reason is forthcoming as to why his prayer was not acceptable, at the same time, the ld.Single Judge has directed to re-notify the allotment of fair price shop and to initiate the process in accordance with law. 4. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the permission has been granted by the ld.Single Judge to re-notify the impugned allotment and to initiate the process, it can be inferred that the prayer made by the appellant-petitioner regarding order of cancellation has been rejected by the ld.Single Judge. 5. After going through the impugned order dated 4th February, 2013 passed by the ld.Single Judge, it appears that relevant Clause (8) of Order, 1976 remained un-noticed where a duty has been casted upon the State Authorities to serve a notice before initiating any action against the incumbent including cancellation of authorisation and unless the action is upheld, further process to re-notify for allotment of fair price shop was not available to the respondents. It would be appropriate to quote Clause (8) of Order, 1976, which reads ad infra: 8. It would be appropriate to quote Clause (8) of Order, 1976, which reads ad infra: 8. Powers to suspend and cancel the authorisation.- (1) If an authorisation holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any provision of this Order and condition of authorisation, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his authorisation may be suspended or cancelled by an order in writing of the Collector or any other officer authorised by the State Government and an entry shall be made in his authorisation relating to such suspension or cancellation. (2) No other or cancellation shall be made under this order unless the authorisation holder has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of authorisation, the authorisation can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the authorisation holder of stating his case." 6. Taking note of Clause (8) of Order, 1976 and the fact that admittedly no notice affording reasonable opportunity of hearing was served on the appellant-petitioner, in our considered view, the action of the respondents cannot be upheld. 7. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the order of the ld. Single Judge dated 4th February, 2013 and the order dated 21st May, 2012 of the respondents cancelling authorisation of appellant are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it will not preclude the respondents from initiating the action which the law permits after due compliance of Clause (8) of Order, 1976.Appeal Allowed. *******