Order The appellant is the dealer of a fair price shop at village Talkhapur Dumra, Panchayat Madhuban of District- Sitamarhi since 1997. The shop of the appellant is stated to have been inspected some time in November-December by the Executive Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The Sub divisional Officer, Sitamarhi, 3rd respondent herein, issued a show cause notice on 2.12.2011 to the appellant stating that when the shop was inspected by the Executive Magistrate, it was found that two labourers were mixing the rice and filling the same in bags. Another allegation was that the board was displayed but the relevant particulars were not mentioned. The appellant was required to submit her explanation within three days. After receiving the notice, the appellant submitted explanation on 5.12.2011. She stated that in the stock of rice that was received from the F.C.I., some bags were torn off and there was also some rice which was not fit for human consumption and when the inspection was carried out the labourers were segregating the rice of those two categories and filling them in separate bags. As regards other allegations, she submitted that every particular was maintained. Not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant, the 3rd respondent passed an order dated 13.12.2011 cancelling her dealership. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No.9272/12. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 14.2.2013 taking the view that the 3rd respondent has considered the explanation submitted by the appellant and the order of 3rd respondent does not warrant any interference. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very show cause notice was bereft of any particulars and even the vague allegation made therein was specifically denied by the appellant. He submits that in case there was any activity of mixing of food grains with other foreign substance, the concerned authority was expected to collect sample and take appropriate action and the very fact that such an averment is not there in the show cause notice, discloses that the allegation itself was not true. He further submits that though a detailed explanation was submitted by the appellant, the 3rd respondent did not take the same into account and simply disbelieved the explanation. He submits that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the matter from correct perspective. He further submits that though a detailed explanation was submitted by the appellant, the 3rd respondent did not take the same into account and simply disbelieved the explanation. He submits that the learned single Judge did not appreciate the matter from correct perspective. Shri Upendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellant indulged in tampering with the quality of the food grains that were supposed to be supplied to the consumers. He submits that in case the bags were torn or food grains were not found fit for human consumption, the matter ought to have been reported to the concerned authority and there was no justification for the appellant in undertaking the activity mentioned in the show cause notice. The principal allegation against the petitioner was that when the shop was inspected by the Executive magistrate, two workers were found filling the rice into different bags. From that an inference was drawn to the effect that the food grains were being mixed with other substances. It was not even mentioned in the show cause notice that what is being mixed in the rice is any other substance. Further, if the authority was of the view that the mixing of the substances was improper, it was expected to collect the sample, so that it could be demonstrated in case of there being any dispute. Whatever may have been the circumstance under which the show cause notice was issued; the petitioner appellant came with a clear explanation as to the activity that was undertaken by the labourers at the shop when the inspection was made. She has categorically stated that some of the bags were torn and thereby the food grains had fallen on the ground and, in certain cases, the rice was unfit for human consumption and the labourers were only segregating the same and filling in the respective bags. Except stating that the explanation is not acceptable, the 3rd respondent did not indicate as to how it cannot be believed. This is not a case where the Executive Magistrate has sealed any particular substance or that the 3rd respondent has made any personal visit. Added to that, though a vague allegation was made about the maintenance of record, it was not even pointed out as to on which aspect the record is not clear. This is not a case where the Executive Magistrate has sealed any particular substance or that the 3rd respondent has made any personal visit. Added to that, though a vague allegation was made about the maintenance of record, it was not even pointed out as to on which aspect the record is not clear. By and large, the action against the fair price shop dealers is taken on account of there being any difference in quantity, as found physically compared to the stock entries drawing inference that the differential quantity may have been diverted for black marketing. Such is not the allegation here. The quality and quantity is in accordance with the record. It is not uncommon that in the context of appointment of fair price shop dealers, heavy political pressure exists from the politicians of the locality and the officers yield to that, to pave the way to appointment of other persons. This appears to be one such case. We do not find any basis for 3rd respondent to cancel the dealership of the appellant. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge. As a consequence, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the 3rd respondent is set aside. The petitioner shall forthwith be restored as a fair price shop dealer. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.