JUDGMENT Vivek Kumar Birla, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record. 2. By means of the present petition, the cancellation of fair price shop by order dated 15.11.2003 and the order dismissing the appeal dated 2.7.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Barielly have been challenged. 3. The brief facts of this case are that the petitioner was a fair price dealer of village Praina, Block Barkhera, Tehsil Bisalpur, District Pilibhit. During the surprise inspection of the Commissioner, certain complaint against the petitioner was raised that she was not distributing the essential commodities fairly. On this, a report dated 30.6.2003 was submitted by the Supply Inspector, Pilibhit. On the basis of the same, the fair price dealership of the petitioner was suspended and she was given a charge-sheet dated 2.7.2003. The petitioner submitted her explanation and denied all allegations in toto. She also submitted affidavits of five card holders stating that they have no complaint against the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner. On the strength of the same, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities while passing the orders impugned herein have not considered those affidavits on merits although they have been mentioned in the impugned orders. The only finding recorded regarding such affidavits of card holders is that the petitioner has procured such affidavits by putting card holders under pressure. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the affidavits submitted by the petitioner in support of her reply were important piece of evidence, which have been illegally ignored by the authorities. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the case of Krishna Manohar vs. State of U.P., 2009 (8) ADJ 214 and Phool Chand Yadav vs. State of U.P., 2009 (4) ADJ 623 to contend that the authorities are under obligation to consider the affidavits before recording a categorical finding against the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Divisional Commissioner has thoroughly considered the contents of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and has recorded a finding that merely on the basis of the affidavits of the card holders filed subsequently, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the learned Divisional Commissioner has thoroughly considered the contents of the affidavits filed by the petitioner and has recorded a finding that merely on the basis of the affidavits of the card holders filed subsequently, the petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him. He thus, submits that the present petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the record, I find that the orders impugned herein only record that it is quite possible that the dealer (petitioner) may have obtained the affidavits of the card holders to avoid the proceedings against her and as such, the dealer is guilty of committing breach of the terms of the licence. In the opinion of this Court, this observation is based on conjectures and surmises and the authorities are under obligation to consider the affidavits so submitted by the petitioner along with the reply to the charge-sheet. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 15.11.2003 passed by the District Supply Officer, Pilibhit cancelling the fair price dealership of the petitioner and order dated 2.7.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 34 of 2003-04 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the District Supply Officer, Pilibhit to re-consider the evidence on record including the affidavits filed by the petitioner in support of her explanation. The said exercise may be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order. 8. It may also be noted that since this petition has been pending for the last ten years and in the meantime some other fair price shop dealer must have been appointed for the purpose of distribution of essential commodities for the village in question, the same shall not be disturbed till the decision of the District Supply Inspector, Pilibhit. 9. This writ petition stands allowed with the observations made hereinabove. No order as to costs.