JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Heard Shri Mukul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 2. Under challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 30.07.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur, whereby the licence to run the fair price shop issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the appellate authority on 20.01.2012, whereby the appeal filed by him against the order dated 30.07.2011 has been dismissed. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record, what needs to be determined in this case is as to whether while passing the impugned order of cancellation of the licence to run the fair price shop, the principles of natural justice have been followed or not and as to whether appropriate and adequate opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner or not. 4. On 19.01.2011, an enquiry appears to have been conducted by the Supply Inspector on certain complaints received against the functioning of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer. On the basis of the said enquiry report dated 19.01.2011, the licence of the petitioner was suspended by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur on 19.01.2011 and simultaneously a charge-sheet was issued while suspending the licence. The petitioner furnished reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet on 26.06.2011 denying the allegations and filed the affidavits of certain cardholders. The Sub Divisional Officer considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and having not found the same satisfactory has passed the impugned order on 30.07.2011 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 5. Apart from relying on the other materials available on record, the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 has also placed reliance on the enquiry report submitted by the Supply Inspector on 19.01.2011. 6. The enquiry conducted by the Supply Inspector on 19.01.2011 was a sort of fact finding of a preliminary enquiry, on the basis of which it was always open to the Sub Divisional Officer to form his prima facie opinion to proceed against the petitioner and suspend the licence pending further full fledged enquiry. However, the said enquiry report dated 19.01.2011 submitted by the Supply Inspector was relied upon while passing the final order dated 30.07.2011. However, the said enquiry report dated 19.01.2011 submitted by the Supply Inspector was relied upon while passing the final order dated 30.07.2011. The principles of natural justice required that a copy of the said report ought to have been provided to the petitioner or the petitioner ought to have been confronted with the same. 7. From a perusal of the impugned order and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is clear that neither the petitioner was ever confronted with the said preliminary enquiry report dated 19.01.2011, nor a copy thereof was ever provided to him, though admittedly, the said report dated 19.01.2011 submitted by the Supply Inspector has been relied upon while passing the impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 8. It is needless to say that cancellation of licence to run a fair price shop visits the licence holder with adverse civil consequences as in such a situation, the licence holder looses the privilege of distributing the essential commodities, hence, in such a case, appropriate and adequate opportunity ought to be provided to the licence holder before passing the order of cancellation of licence. It is true that the report dated 19.01.2011 is only a fact finding/preliminary enquiry report, however, since it was relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the final order dated 30.07.2011 cancelling the licence of the petitioner, the principles of natural justice required that the copy of the said report ought to have been provided to the petitioner. Having not done so, in my considered opinion, the principles of natural justice in this case have been violated as one of the materials on which the impugned order dated 30.07.2011 is based is the report dated 19.01.2011. The appellate authority has also not taken into account the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has summarily dismissed the appeal without appreciating the aforesaid legal issue involved in this case. 9. In the result, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.07.2011, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahmoodabad, District Sitapur as contained in Annexure No.2 and the appellate order dated 20.01.2012, passed by the appellate authority in Appeal No.1500/2010-2011, District Sitapur under Clause 28(3) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 as contained in Annexure No. 1 are hereby quashed with all consequential benefits.