JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Singh-I, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 9.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad in Appeal No. C 20141300001065 (Chhatar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and orders dated 14.7.2014 and 24.7.2014 including show cause notice dated 23.6.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha. 3. Vide order dated 14.7.2014, the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop was suspended pursuant to the show cause notice dated 23.6.2014, vide order dated 24.7.2014, the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was cancelled whereas by the subsequent order dated 9.1.2015 appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation dated 24.7.2014 has been dismissed. 4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent for distribution of scheduled commodities to the cardholders of village Jabdi, Block and Tehsil Amroha. While working as such, certain complaints were made against the petitioner by Sri Vipin Singh son of Kamal Singh, Sharif son of Rafiq and many other residents of village Jabdi, Tehsil Amorha. The complaints were made on 17.6.2014 on the eve of Tehsil Diwas. On the receipt of the aforesaid complaints, the Supply Inspector Amroha was directed to make an inquiry in this regard who had inquired about the matter and found certain irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities. Taking note of that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.6.2014 containing charges regarding charging of higher price from APL, BPL cardholders, non-distribution of scheduled commodities regularly to the APL cardholders, non-distribution of the kerosene oil in accordance with the norms and standard, detaining the cards of the cardholders. The petitioner submitted his reply but the Sub-Divisional Officer found that reply submitted by the petitioner is dissatisfactory, consequently he suspended the agreement of the petitioner and required fresh explanation vide order dated 14.7.2014. The petitioner has again submitted his reply and the Sub-Divisional Officer, being dissatisfied, with the reply has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply but the Sub-Divisional Officer found that reply submitted by the petitioner is dissatisfactory, consequently he suspended the agreement of the petitioner and required fresh explanation vide order dated 14.7.2014. The petitioner has again submitted his reply and the Sub-Divisional Officer, being dissatisfied, with the reply has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved petitioner has filed appeal against the order of cancellation dated 24.7.2014 and the appellate authority too has dismissed the appeal without addressing himself on the grounds taken in the appeal and without addressing on the points involved in the case. 6. While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer, while cancelling the agreement, has mentioned the charges and the petitioner's reply in brief ignoring the relevant part of the reply and without discussing anything in detail, cancelled the agreement without recording any finding regarding proving of each and every charge levelled against the petitioner and the appellate authority too has not at all discussed the case of the petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner, herein, has filed present writ petition in which on 9.2.2015, learned Standing Counsel was directed to file counter affidavit. Pursuant thereto, counter affidavit has been filed by the State respondents and the petitioner, in response thereto, has filed rejoinder affidavit. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 8. In paragraphs 9,13 and 14 of the writ petition, following averments have been made : - 9. That although in the show cause notice it was mention that on the complaint of the village an inquiry was conducted but no such inquiry report was given to the petitioner either with the show cause notice dated 23.6.2014. 13. That the order of cancellation of fair price shop agreement was vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice and also for the reason that after submission of reply by the petitioner no confronted inquiry was held and this aspect of the matter has not been examined by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal of the petitioner. 14. That the appellate authority also failed to consider that the charges mention in the show cause notice were absolutely vague as they lacked in materials particulars. 9. 14. That the appellate authority also failed to consider that the charges mention in the show cause notice were absolutely vague as they lacked in materials particulars. 9. The reply of paragraph 9 of the writ petition has been given in para 11 of the counter affidavit and reply of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit. For convenience, paragraphs 11 and 14 of the counter affidavit, filed by Sri Birjesh Pal, Area Rationing Officer, is reproduced herein under 11 That the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition as stated are denied. In reply it is submitted that in case the petitioner was needed the copy of enquiry report for filing his reply, he ought to have demanded the same from the office of the respondent no. 2. 14. That the contents of paragraph nos. 12,13,and 14 of the writ petition are wrong and denied. 10. From the perusal of paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it transpires that the petitioner has clearly stated that the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner. The non-service of the inquiry report has not been denied in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. On the contrary, it is stated that in case, it was needed by the petitioner, he ought to have demanded the same from the office of the respondent no. 2. Likewise, the averments made in paragraph 13 and 14 of the writ petition has also not been specifically denied in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit with supporting materials. 11. On the contrary, from the perusal of the suspension order dated 14.7.2014, it transpires that the inquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector on the complaint received by certain cardholders. The Supply Inspector submitted his report on 23.6.2014. On the basis of the report of the Supply Inspector, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.6.2014 and the petitioner was required to file his reply. The reply was filed but the same was not found satisfactory and the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was suspended and the petitioner was again required to file his explanation regarding allegation. The suspension order has been brought on record. The order contains the copy of the inquiry report apart from that nothing has been mentioned. The reply was filed but the same was not found satisfactory and the petitioner's agreement to run fair price shop was suspended and the petitioner was again required to file his explanation regarding allegation. The suspension order has been brought on record. The order contains the copy of the inquiry report apart from that nothing has been mentioned. It also transpires that after the suspension order, no separate charge-sheet or show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to file reply in respect of the previous charges. 12. A Full bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 has held that in case, after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority decides to hold inquiry for cancellation of the agreement that requires full fledged inquiry, which means service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the witnesses, copy of the complaints and other materials on which inquiry is required to be conducted. In this regard observation made by the Full Bench in paragraph no. 35, which is relevant reads as under : - 35.Para 4 and 5 of the Government Order clearly permits fulfledged enquiry pursuant to the show cause notice for cancellation and then final decision in the matter. So far the order of suspension is concerned Government Order do not provide any appeal and at the same time there was no contemplation of signing an agreement as was made obligatory pursuant to Distribution Order of 2004. 13. This Court in Abu Baker Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary (F.&S.) Government of U.P. at Lucknow and others 2010 (80) ALR 769 and Gyan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (writ petition no. 33712 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2012), which has been followed in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others (civil misc. writ petition no. 1070 of 2010, decided on 13.12.2012), has held that if the decision is based on the statements of the complainants/cardholders, then the copies of the statements have to be provided to the fair price shop agent, so that, he may be able to cross-examine the persons whose statement has been made basis for cancellation. 14. writ petition no. 1070 of 2010, decided on 13.12.2012), has held that if the decision is based on the statements of the complainants/cardholders, then the copies of the statements have to be provided to the fair price shop agent, so that, he may be able to cross-examine the persons whose statement has been made basis for cancellation. 14. Here from the perusal of the record as well as the stand taken in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, it is apparent that neither fresh charge-sheet was provided to the petitioner nor the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to him, in this view of the matter, there is an inherent lacking in decision making process, therefore the impugned order of cancellation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Likewise, the appellate authority too has not examined each and every aspect of the matter, therefore order suffers from non-consideration of the legal and factual aspect of the matter. Hence, the impugned orders dated 9.1.2015 passed by the Commissioner Moradabad Division Moradabad in Appeal No. C 20141300001065 (Chhatar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), and orders dated 14.7.2014 and 24.7.2014 including show cause notice dated 23.6.2014 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed.The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amroha is not prevented to proceed in accordance with law and pass fresh order, if so needed. The consequences to allow the writ petition will follow and needful be done in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.