JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 20.12.2014 and 5.9.2014, passed by opposite parties, whereby the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner for running fair price shop in Village Panchayat Bhawanipur, Block Mujehna, Tehsil & District Gonda has been cancelled and the appeal preferred in this regard has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned cancelling the agreement of fair price shop has been passed in most arbitrary and illegal manner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The opposite party no.4/District Supply Officer, District Gonda without appreciating the procedure prescribed in this regard and without providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner had cancelled the agreement of fair price shop in question. The petitioner feeling aggrieved, had preferred an appeal under Section 28 (3) of Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 before the Divisional Commissioner concerned. However, the appellate authority without appreciating the contentions raised in appeal has dismissed the appeal in most cursory manner. 3. Submission is that the order impugned dated 5.7.2014 has been passed relaying on the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 without providing copy of said enquiry report to the petitioner and without calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation on the said enquiry report. It is submitted that the District Magistrate on the basis of certain complaints made against the alleged non-distribution of essential commodities had directed the area rationing officer vide letter dated 30.6.2014 to hold an enquiry. The Area Rationing Officer, Colonelganj, Gonda had made spot inspection at the fair price shop in question on 5.7.2014 and had recorded statement of certain card holders and thereafter submitted the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014. The opposite party no.4, relying on the said report on the very next date i.e. 5.9.2014 had passed the impugned order cancelling the agreement of fair price shop in question. It is contended that this Court in the case of Maiku Lal v. State of U.P. and others; [ 2009 (27) LCD 1192 ] has held that in case the order for cancellation of agreement of fair price shop has been passed without supplying copy of enquiry report, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. It is contended that this Court in the case of Maiku Lal v. State of U.P. and others; [ 2009 (27) LCD 1192 ] has held that in case the order for cancellation of agreement of fair price shop has been passed without supplying copy of enquiry report, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity of hearing as he was although called upon to submit explanation to the show cause notice but only statement of certain card holders were provided, however, the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 was not provided to the petitioner. Since the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 was the basis of passing of the impugned order, as such, it was required to be provided to the petitioner to give him adequate opportunity to submit his explanation which was not done, as such, the order impugned was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit submits that the petitioner was found guilty of wrongful distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. Statement of card holders were recorded by the Area Rationing Officer while making the spot inspection at the fair price shop in question. From the perusal of statement of card holders, it is evident that they were not distributed the essential commodities by the petitioner. The Area Rationing Officer, as such, had submitted his report dated 4.9.2014 to the District Supply Officer, who had considered the entire material on record and was satisfied that the petitioner was guilty of non-supply of essential commodities to the card holders and, as such, passed the order impugned cancelling the agreement of fair price shop in question. It is submitted that the orders impugned are just and proper and do not require any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. The petitioner was given fair price shop licence for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of Village Panchayat Bhawanipur, Block Mujehna, Tehsil & District Gonda. He had entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for supply of essential commodities through the fair price shop allotted to him. 7. The petitioner was given fair price shop licence for distribution of essential commodities to the card holders of Village Panchayat Bhawanipur, Block Mujehna, Tehsil & District Gonda. He had entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for supply of essential commodities through the fair price shop allotted to him. It appears that certain complaints were made by the card holders to the District Magistrate concerned alleging non-supply of essential commodities from the fair price shop in question and the District Magistrate vide letter dated 30.6.2014 had directed the Area Rationing Officer, Colonelganj, Gonda to make an enquiry and submit report. The Area Rationing Officer thereafter had visited the fair price shop in question on 5.7.2014. He had inspected the relevant records and had also recorded the statements of certain Antyodaya and BPL card holders. He had submitted the report dated 4.9.2014. The opposite party no.4/District Supply Officer, Gonda considering the explanation given by the petitioner and examining the enquiry report dated 4.9.2014 had come to conclusion that the petitioner was not regularly distributing the essential commodities, such as, sugar and kerosene oil, although, he had lifted the same from the Government depot. As such, he is guilty of committing irregularity in the distribution of essential commodities. The opposite party no.4, as such, vide impugned order dated 5.9.2014 had cancelled the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 28 (3) of U.P. Essential Commodities Control Order, 2004 before opposite party no.1/Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, District Gonda. The said appeal was decided on merit by impugned order dated 20.12.2014. 9. The short question for consideration in the instant writ petition is whether the supply of inspection report to the petitioner was necessary in order to provide him adequate opportunity and whether in the absence of supply of enquiry report to the petitioner the proceedings held prior to passing of the impugned cancellation order were bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. This Court in the case of Maiku Lal v. State of U.P. and others (supra) has held that in case the order of cancellation of fair price shop licence has been passed relying on the enquiry report the non-supply of said enquiry report would vitiate the proceedings as it would amount to denial of proper opportunity of defence to the petitioner. Paras 13, 14, and 15 of the judgment on reproduction reads as under: - "13. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner finds force that the impugned order of cancellation has been passed on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Supply Inspector, the copy of which was not supplied to the petitioner due to which the petitioner was denied the proper opportunity of defence and it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 14. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the impugned order of cancellation dated 29.8.2001 was passed merely considering the reply submitted to the show cause notice by the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. The learned Commissioner while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of the Fair Price Shop did not properly consider the fact that the enquiry report which was the main basis for cancellation of the licence of Fair Price Shop was not provided to the petitioner and the petitioner did not get adequate opportunity of defence before passing of the impugned order dated 8.10.2001. 15. In view of the legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 26.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 8.10.2001, passed by the opposite party No.3 as contained in Annexure No.6 to the writ petition deserves to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The writ of certiorari is issued to this effect." 11. It is to be noted that this Court in the case of Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others; 2008 (16) LCD 891 as well as Dori Lal v. State of U.P. and other; 2006 (24) LCD 1121 has held that the order cancelling the licence passed without petitioner being provided the copy of resolution of village panchayat as well as the enquiry report, if any, and without being afforded opportunity of submitting explanation and hearing amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence, it deserves to be quashed. 12. 12. In the present case, it is the admitted position that the order impugned for cancellation of fair price shop was passed relying on the enquiry report of the Area Rationing Officer dated 4.9.2014 and the said enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner, as such, non-supply of said enquiry report amounts to denial of adequate opportunity of defence to the petitioner and violates the principles of natural justice. It is mandatory on the part of the authorities concerned to provide enquiry report to the fair price shop licencee in case the said enquiry report has been relied while passing the order of cancellation of fair price shop agreement. The appellate authority while deciding the appeal has not properly considered this legal aspect of the matter and has upheld the order of cancellation of fair price shop agreement in a cursory manner. 13. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the orders impugned dated 5.9.2014 as well as 20.12.2014 are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 14. The writ petition, as such, is allowed. Orders impugned dated 5.9.2014 as well as 20.12.2014 are hereby quashed with liberty to the opposite parties to hold a fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders. In case any such proceedings are held, the same shall be concluded in accordance with law expeditiously. Petition Allowed.