JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Ateequzzaman Siddiqui for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri S.K. Verma for the caveator. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26.07.2014 and the Commissioner dated 06.10.2008 by which the license of the petitioner for running fair price shop of village Rahmatpur, block Rehra Bazar, district Balrampur, has been canceled. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner was granted license to run fair price shop in the year 1991. Since then, he was regularly running the fair price shop. When a fresh election of Gram Panchayat was conducted in the year 2006, then the Pradhan due to political rivalry, passed a resolution dated 18.07.2006, canceling the license of the petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution Sub-Divisional Officer canceled the license by the order dated 16.09.2006. The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 18.07.2006 and order dated 16.09.2006 in writ petition, (registered as Writ Petition No. 6317 (M/B) of 2006, in which, initially interim order dated 05.10.2006 was passed, by which operation of the order dated 16.09.2006 was stayed. However, the respondent authorities were given liberty to take appropriate action and pass fresh order against the petitioner after affording him due opportunity of hearing. It is stated that after the interim order of this Court, a fresh complaint has been filed against the petitioner, on which the Supply Inspector again conducted an inquiry and on the basis of the report of Supply Inspector, the Sub-Divisional Officer suspended the license of the petitioner and issued a show cause notice, of the charges leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, without holding any inquiry and without supplying the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed an fresh order on 11.10.2007 canceling the license of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner, which was dismissed by the order dated 06.10.2008. 4. The aforementioned writ petition filed by the petitioner remained pending before this Court. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and this Court by order dated 08.05.2014 quashed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 16.09.2006. After the order dated 08.05.2014, the petitioner filed an application before Sub-Divisional Officer for restoring the license of the petitioner. 4. The aforementioned writ petition filed by the petitioner remained pending before this Court. Ultimately, the writ petition came up for hearing before this Court and this Court by order dated 08.05.2014 quashed the order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 16.09.2006. After the order dated 08.05.2014, the petitioner filed an application before Sub-Divisional Officer for restoring the license of the petitioner. However, the SDO by the impugned order dated 26.07.2014 held that the license of the petitioner has already been canceled in a fresh inquiry by the order dated 11.10.2007 and the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Additional Commissioner on 06.10.2008. These orders have not been challenged as such, it is not possible to restore the license of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been bonafide contesting the matter before this Court. This Court, in the interim order dated 05.10.2006, gave liberty to the authorities to conduct fresh inquiry, but instead of conducting fresh inquiry in the earlier matter, the fresh complaint has been entertained and fresh order has been passed, of which the petitioner has not been given proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the fresh order of Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11.10.2007 was challenged before the Commissioner in the appeal, but the Appellate Court has illegally dismissed the appeal, holding that fresh order has been passed in pursuance of direction given by the High Court in the interim order. He submits that in the interim order, the High Court has given liberty to conduct fresh inquiry in the same complaint and not to entertain a fresh complaint. The order of the Commissioner dated 06.10.2008 is illegal and is liable to be set aside. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. A perusal of the order of this court dated 05.10.2006 shows that High Court while passing the interim order, has itself given the liberty to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner and pass a fresh order. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. A perusal of the order of this court dated 05.10.2006 shows that High Court while passing the interim order, has itself given the liberty to conduct the inquiry against the petitioner and pass a fresh order. Otherwise also, under the law, if a fresh complaint has been received against the petitioner, then statutory authorities are duty-bound to make inquiry in the fresh complaint and there being no restraint order from any higher court, it cannot be said that the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer on the basis of fresh complaint was illegal or suffers from any jurisdictional error. 7. So far as the argument of counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Divisional Officer did not give proper opportunity of hearing and has not supplied the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, is concerned, a perusal of the order of Sub Divisional Officer as well as Commissioner, both show that show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has also submitted his reply to the show cause notice and after submission of his reply, the fresh inquiry has been held in the village by the Naib Tahsildar on 17.09.2007 and he submitted his report. In the fresh inquiry conducted, it was found that the petitioner was not distributing the food materials to BPL Card Holders regularly in every month and he used to charge more prices than the prescribed rate, therefore the petitioner was found guilty for violating the terms of the license and his license has been canceled. Although the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 06.10.2008 has observed that fresh inquiry was conducted in pursuance of the liberty given by High Court, but only for this observation, the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Officer cannot be said to be illegal. The order canceling the fair price shop license has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 11.10.2007. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on 6.10.2008. After expiry of six years, the license cannot be restored to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the subsequent order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26.07.2014 does not suffer from any illegality. However, in case fresh allotment is made, then the petitioner will have opportunity to participate in it. 8. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.