Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Petitioner's licence/agreement/dealership to run fair price shop in village panchyat Naudhia development block Sahabganj, District Chandauli was cancelled through order dated 19.1.2006 ( or 15.1.2006) passed by Deputy Collector Chakia, district Chandauli. Against the said order petitioner filed appeal no.8 of 2006. Petitioner had also filed appeal no.7 of 2005 against suspension order. When appeals were taken up for hearing no one appeared on behalf of petitioner, however, Commissioner, Varanasi dismissed both the appeals on merit after perusing the impugned order of the Deputy Collector and hearing learned government counsel through order dated 30.5.2006, hence this writ petition. Even though appellate court was not at all justified in dismissing the appeal on merit in the absence of appellant's counsel as in such situation appeal can be dismissed only in default, however, the order dated 19.1.2006 passed by the Deputy Collector cancelling petitioner's licence has also been challenged through this writ petition I propose to consider this writ petition on facts also. Notice was given to the petitioner on 5.10.2005. Instead of filing reply to the notice petitioner filed writ petition in this court which was disposed of on 14.11.2005 directing the Deputy Collector to decide the matter within a month. Notice was again given to the petitioner on 10.1.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the reply on 17.1.2006. After considering the same the impugned order dated 19.1.2006 was passed by Deputy Collector. Surprise inspection of petitioner's shop had been made on 1.10.2005. Several commodities in large quantities were found missing from the shop which had been lifted by the petitioner but not distributed. The deficiency was to the extent of two bags of wheat and 82 bags of rice. Stock/rate board was also not there at the door of the shop. Regional Supply inspector the report prepared just after inspection on 1.10.2005 in which he mentioned missing quantities of the essential commodities and on the said report petitioner put his signatures thereby accepting the correctness of the same. In the entire writ petition it has not been mentioned that petitioner did not sign the inspection memo. On 1.10.2005 FIR had also been lodged. The police inspector concerned inspected the shop of the petitioner on 6.10.2005 and found that allegedly missing commodities were present. In the entire writ petition it has not been mentioned that petitioner did not sign the inspection memo. On 1.10.2005 FIR had also been lodged. The police inspector concerned inspected the shop of the petitioner on 6.10.2005 and found that allegedly missing commodities were present. Accordingly, final report was submitted, however the higher authorities directed the inspector to investigate further. As in the entire writ petition statement contained in the impugned order dated 19.1.2006 that on the inspection memo petitioner put his signatures has not been denied hence it means that on 1.10.2005 commodities were missing and petitioner had admitted the said fact. If, on 6.10.2005 commodities were found present in the shop then it only meant that during the intervening period of 5 days misappropriated commodities had been replaced in the shop. Accordingly, no fault can be found with the impugned order dated 19.1.2006. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.