JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.—This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 by means of which the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled and the order dated 19.6.2014 by means of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.4.2012 has been rejected. 2. The petitioner was the holder of a fair price shop licence. On 8.12.2011, on inspection, the fair price shop of the petitioner was found closed by the Revenue Inspector. On the basis of the inspection report dated 9.12.2011, submitted by the Revenue Inspector, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar- the respondent No. 3 on 20.12.2011 passed an order whereby the aforesaid licence/agreement of the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 13.4.2012 cancelling the licence/agreement of the fair price shop of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 13.4.2012 cancelling the licence/agreement of the fair price shop of the petitioner. The portion of the order dated 13.4.2012 to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court is extracted below: ^^xzke iapk;r csyok ?kkV fo0[k0&us0ukS0 ds mfpr nj fodzsrk Jh bn`'k dh forj.k O;oLFkk dk vkSpd fujh{k.k forj.k fnol fnukad 8-12-2011 dks jktLo fujh{kd dksVok }kjk fd;k x;kA jktLo fujh{kd dksVok dh tkWp ds nkSjku nqdku cUn ik;h x;hA fodzsrk mijksDr }kjk forj.k dk dk;Z ugha fd;k tk jgk FkkA ekSds ij mifLFkr xzke okfl;ksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd [kk|kUu dk forj.k ugha gks jgk gSA fodzsrk ds laca/k esa mlds ?kj okyksa }kjk crk;k x;k fd dgha xkWo eas x;s gSaA xzkeokfl;ksa us fodzsrk mijksDr }kjk nqdku ,oa mBku djds xkWo esa yk;s x;s [kk|kUu ds laca/k esa vufHkKrk izdV dh x;hA fodzsrk mijksDr }kjk fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij [kk|kUu@phuh dk forj.k dkMZ/kkjdksa esa u fd;k tkuk 'kklukns'kksa@fn;s x;s funsZ'kksa rFkk vko';d oLrq forj.k vkns'k 2004 dk mYya?ku ekurs gq, fodzsrk mijksDr dk vuqca/k i= dk;kZy; vkns'k la[;k&614 fnukad 20-12-2011 }kjk fuyafcr dj fn;k x;k rFkk fodzsrk ls vkjksiksa@vfu;ferrkvksa ds laca/k esa fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k lqlaxr lk{;ksa lfgr ,d lIrkg ds vUnj izLrqr djus ds funsZ'k fn;s x;sA fdUrq fodzsrk }kjk vkt fnukad 12-4-2012 rd Hkh viuk Li"Vhdj.k fyf[kr vFkok ekSf[kd :i esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd fodzsrk dks mlds Åij yxk;s x;s vkjksi Lohdk;Z gS vkSj og bl laca/k esa dqN ugha dguk pkgrkA fodzsrk dk ;g d`R; xaHkhj vfu;ferrk dk |ksrd gSA vr% mijksDr ds n`f"Vxr Jh bn`'k mfpr nj fodzsrk xzke iapk;r csyok fo0[k0&us0uh0 dk vuqcU/k i= tufgr ds n`f"Vxr tekur dh lEiw.kZ /kujkf'k tCr djrs gq, fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2012, the petitioner, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, Division-Gorakhpur- the respondent No. 2 inter alia on the ground that neither the suspension order dated 20.12.2011 nor any show-cause notice/charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner and as such the order dated 13.4.2012 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. On 19.6.2014, the respondent No. 2 passed an order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. On 19.6.2014, the respondent No. 2 passed an order whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.6.2014 is extracted below: ^^mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZ rFkk i=koyh ij miyCèk vfHkys[kkas ls ;g Li"V gks jgk gS fd mfpr nj fodzsrk }kjk fnukad 8-11-2012 dks forj.k gsrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds nqdku cUn dj nh x;h rFkk uksfVl cksMZ ij vius vuqifLFkr u jgus dk dksbZ dkj.k vafdr ugha fd;kA jktLo fujh{kd }kjk tkap ds le; mlds ?kjokyks ls iwNrkN es ;g Li"V ugh gqvk fd dksVsnkj dgk x;k gS ckn es mlds }kjk vius yM+ds dh rfc;r [kjkc gksus ds dkj.k ckgj MkDVj dks fn[kkus tkus dk dFku fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk bl lEcU/k esa MkDVj dk ipkZ vihy ds lkFk lyaXu fd;k x;k gS] ijUrq ;g vk'p;Ztud gS fd fnukad 20-12-2011 dks vihykFkhZ dh nqdku fuyfEcr gksus dh tkudkjh mls fnukad 12-4-2012 rd ugh gks ikbZ vkSj og fuyEcu vkns'k ,oa vkjksi i= dh izrh{kk vius ?kj cSBdj djrk jgkA fuyEcu vkns'k ds mijkUr vihykFkhZ ds mfpr nj nqdku dh vkiwfrZ ckf/kr gks x;h] rks mls bl RkF; dk irk djuk pkfg;s Fkk fd D;ksa mldh vkiwfrZ ckf/kr dh x;h gSA bl izdkj vihykFkhZ }kjk tkucw>dj pkj ekg rd viuk Li"Vhdj.k voj U;k;ky; esa izLrqr ugh fd;k tkuk vihykFkhZ dh dnk'k;rk ,oa euethZ ls forj.k fd;k tkuk Li"V djrk gSA mijksDr vk/kkj ij ;g vihy cyghu gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was running the fair price shop since the last 20 years and there was no complaint against him. It was on account of illness of his son, that the petitioner was unable to open his fair price shop on 8.12.2011, however, on 9.12.2011 and 10.12.2011 the petitioner distributed the essential commodities to the card holders. Learned counsel has vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 13.4.2012, was passed by the respondent No. 2 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as neither any show-cause notice/charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any inquiry was held in the matter and as such the impugned orders were liable to be set aside. 5. 5. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order and has submitted that in view of the circular dated 26.11.2011 of the District Magistrate, Kushi Nagar, the petitioner was obliged to distribute the essential commodities on eighth, ninth and tenth of every month but on inspection on 8.12.2011 the fair price shop of the petitioner was found closed and since the petitioner did not file his reply to the show-cause notice within the time mentioned therein, the licence/agreement of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the record. 7. To ensure proper distribution of essential commodities through public distribution system, Essential Commodities Act 1955 (for short ‘Act’) was enacted. In pursuance to the powers conferred by the Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001, the State Government notified the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (for short ‘Distribution Order, 2004'). As per the provisions of the Distribution Order, 2004 a fair price shop licence holder was obliged to sign a fresh agreement. Clause 22 (1) of the draft agreement is extracted below: ^^22- ¼1½ ;fn vkSj tc dHkh ,rn~ iwoZ mfYyf[kr 'krksZa vkSj izfrcU/kksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh vfHkdrkZ }kjk mYya?ku fd;k tk; vFkok@vkSj vuqikyu u fd;k tk; rks l{ke izkf/kdkjh] fyf[kr :i ls Li"Vr% dkj.k crkrs gq, vfHkdrkZ }kjk tek izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k vius foosdkuqlkj vkaf'kd vFkok lEiw.kZ :i ls 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr dj ldrk gS vFkok bl vuqcUèk i= dks fuyfEcr djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ ds fo:ö vxzsrj tkWp ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la;ksftr djkdj izfdz;k esa yk ldrk gS vkSj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh izfdz;k esa vfHkdrkZ dks mlds fo:) lk{;ksa dk voyksdu djus dk volj iznku djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus dk volj iznku djrs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fopkjksijkUr vfHkdrkZ dk vuqcU/; fujLr rd dj ldrk gS rFkk lEiw.kZ izfrHkwfr jkf'k 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr dj ldrk gSA** 8. A perusal of clause 22 (1) of the draft agreement mentioned above, would show that before cancelling the licence/agreement of a fair price shop, the authorities are obliged to hold an oral inquiry strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. 9. Apart from the Distribution Order, 2004 the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.7.2004, laying down the procedure for suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licence/agreement. Paragraph Nos. 9. Apart from the Distribution Order, 2004 the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.7.2004, laying down the procedure for suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licence/agreement. Paragraph Nos. 2, 4, and 5 of the said Government Order being relevant are being quoted below: ^^2- mDr i`"BHkwfe esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd xzkeh.k ,oa 'kgjh {ks=ksa dh mfpr nj dh nqdkuksa ds fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k ds lEcU/k esa fuEu izfdz;k dk ikyu fd;k tk,A ¼1½ mfpr nj dh nqdku dk fuyEcu ek= fdlh O;fDr dh f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij ugha fd;k tk;A ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ds fo:) fdlh lzksr ls f'kdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks igys mldh izkjfEHkd tkap djk;h tk,A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa nqdkunkj ds fo:) ,slh xEHkhj vfu;ferrk,a izFke n`"V;k fl) gks jgh gksa ftuds vk/kkj ij nqdkunkj dh nqdku fujLr gksus dh lEHkkouk gks rHkh nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk; vkSj lkFk gh lkFk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk, fd mldh nqdku D;ksa u fujLr dj nh tk,A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;k tk; fd vfu;ferrk bruh xEHkhj ugha gS fd nqdku ds fujLrhdj.k dh lEHkkouk gks rks dsoy dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;A fuyEcu vkns'k@dkj.k crkvksa uksfVl ,d Lihfdax vkMZj gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;h x;h mu lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk fooj.k gksuk pkfg, ftudk mRrj nqdkunkj ls visf{kr gksA ¼2½ ¼d½ [kk| foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@ftyk iz'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@vU; izkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkdfLed fujh{k.k ds nkSjku ;fn ik;k tkrk gS fd nqdkunkj }kjk dksbZ xEHkhj vfu;ferrk dh x;h gS rks Hkh nqdku dks fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼[k½ [kk| foHkkx ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@ftyk iz'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@vU; izkf/kd`r O;fDr;ksa }kjk ;fn nqdkunkj dksbZ vfu;fer dk;Z] forj.k esa xM+cM+h ;k vuqlwfpr oLrqvksa dh dkykcktkjh djrs gq, idM+k tkrk rks Hkh fu;qfDr vf/kdkjh }kjk vius foosd dk iz;ksx djrs gq, nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk ldrk gSA mDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa nqdku ds fuyEcu dh fLFkfr esa Hkh Lihfdax vkMZj ls fuyEcu vkns'k tkjh fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa lHkh vfu;ferrkvksa dk mYys[k gksxk rFkk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk fd D;ksa u mldh nqdku fujLr dj nh tk;A 4- fuyfEcr dh x;h nqdkuksa ds fo:) tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa vfuok;Z :i ls iwjh dh tk;sxh rFkk tkap esa lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og tkap esa viuk iwjk lg;ksx ns rkfd tkap dk dk;Z tYnh ls tYnh iwjk fd;k tk lds rFkk fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa xq.k&nks"k ds vk/kkj ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA ;fn nqdkunkj }kjk tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fn;k tk jgk gks vkSj tkap esa foyEc djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gks rks nqdkunkj dks bl vk'k; dk Hkh uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk vkSj viuk i{k j[kus dk vfUre volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 5- tkap dh dk;Zokgh vf/kdre ,d ekg esa iw.kZ djds fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk vkSj xq.k nks"k ds vk/kkj ij ,d Lihfdax vkMZj tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA bl vkns'k esa ;g Li"V mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd lEcfU/kr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k vkSj mls lquk x;kA ;fn nqdkunkj us tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k gks vkSj lquokbZ ds volj dk tkucw>dj mi;ksx u fd;k gks rks vfUre vkns'k esa bl ckr dk Hkh iwjk mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd nqdkunkj dks volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vfUre uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq mlus tkucw> dj volj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k vkSj tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA** 10. As per clause 4 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004, mentioned above, before cancelling the fair price shop licence, the respondents are obliged to hold an inquiry. As per the said clause, in case the licence holder is not cooperating in the inquiry, the licencing authority is obliged to issue a notice to that effect and afford a last opportunity to the licence holder. 11. In the case in hand, the petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph No. 11 to 13 of the writ petition, that the alleged suspension order/show-cause notice dated 20.12.2011 was never served upon the petitioner and when he approached the authority concerned, the concerned clerk informed the petitioner that the impugned suspension order/show-cause notice had been sent to the petitioner by registered post. As the suspension order dated 20.12.2011 was not served upon the petitioner, the petitioner approached the authority concerned a number of times but the suspension order/show-cause notice was not supplied to the petitioner and as such the petitioner could not file his reply, to the charges leveled against him. Reply to paragraph Nos. 11 to 13 of the writ petition is to be found in paragraph Nos. 12 to 14 of the counter-affidavit. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner denied the averments made in paragraph Nos. 12 to 14 of the writ petition and reiterated the contents of paragraph Nos. 11 to 13 of the writ petition. Paragraph Nos. 11 to 13 of the writ petition and 12 to 14 of the counter-affidavit being relevant are being reproduced here under: Paragraph Nos. 11, 12 & 13 of the writ petition: “11.That when the petitioner comes to know that licence of his fair price shop was suspended on 20.12.2011 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushi Nagar then he come to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushi Nagar for obtaining suspension order then the clerk of supply department told to the petitioner that the aforesaid suspension order dated 20.12.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar has been sent to him through registered post. 12.That the petitioner several times approached to the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushi Nagar to supply the suspension order dated 2012.2011 to explain the charge leveled against the petitioner but the suspension order was not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, due to this reason the petitioner has not filed any reply of the suspension order or charge-sheet issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, Kushi Nagar. 13. That it is pertinent to point out here that the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the suspension order of fair price shop of the petitioner or charge-sheet and until 12.4.2012 the petitioner has also not informed by the authority through reminder. The petitioner waited the supply of suspension order of fair price shop and charge-sheet if any, but uptill 12.4.2012 the suspension order and charge-sheet was not supplied to the petitioner by the authorities concern.” Paragraph Nos. 12, 13 & 14 of the counter-affidavit: ^^12- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj la[;k 12 esa of.kZr dFku esa dguk gS fd ;kph dk dFku fdlh lk{; ij vk/kkfjr u gksus ds dkj.k Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;kph }kjk viuh nqdku ds vuqca/k i= ds fuyEcu vkns'k fnukad 20-12-2011 dks izkIr u djus ds dkj.k Mkd }kjk Hkstk x;kA 13- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj la[;k 12 esa of.kZr dFku vLohdkj gSA ;kph dks ;fn Mkd }kjk vkjksi i=@fuyEcu vkns'k izkIr u gqvk rks lEcfU/kr dk;kZy; esa vkdj l{ke vf/kdkjh ls izkIr djuk pkfg;s FkkA ;fn mDRk vkns'k u izkIr gksrk rks mPPk vf/kdkfj;ksa ds laKku esa yk;k tkuk pkfg;s] ijUrq ;kph ,slk u dj euekus <ax ls pqipki ?kj cSBk jgk rFkk Li"Vhdj.k ÁLrqr ugha fd;kA 14- ;g fd ;kfpdk ds izLrj la[;k 13 esa of.kZr dFku vLohdkj gSA bl izLrj dk mRRkj iwoZ esa of.kZr izLrj 03 esa of.kZr fd;k tk pqdk gSA** 12. A perusal of the impugned order of cancellation dated 13.4.2012 passed by the opposite party No. 2 would show that the fair price shop licence/agreement of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the charges leveled against the petitioner in the suspension order/show-cause notice dated 20.12.2011 within the time mentioned therein and as such the charges leveled against the petitioner stood admitted. 13. 13. It is the specific case of the petitioner that neither the impugned suspension order dated 20.12.2011 nor the show-cause notice/charge-sheet was ever served upon him and as such the petitioner was unable to file reply to the charges leveled against him. In paragraph Nos. 12, 13 & 14 of the counter-affidavit a bald averment has been made by the respondents that since the petitioner refused to receive the suspension order/show-cause notice, the same was sent to the petitioner by post. The date on which the petitioner refused to accept the notice, the date on which the suspension order was sent to the petitioner by post is conspicuously missing. Though in the counter-affidavit the respondents have stated that the copy of the suspension order/show-cause notice dated 20.12.2011 was sent to the petitioner by registered post but no documentary evidence in support of their averment has been annexed alongwith the counter-affidavit. 14. The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any special law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. The burden of proof of the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts it and not on the party who denies it. 15. In a writ petition or a counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence as proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever furnished with the suspension order or any show-cause notice or a charge-sheet requiring the petitioner to meet the charges leveled against him. In view of the categorical denial by the petitioner, the burden of proof that the suspension order/show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner was squarely on the respondents, which they have miserably failed to discharge. 16. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.4.2012 the petitioner had categorically stated that neither the suspension order dated 20.12.2011 nor any show-cause notice/charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the suspension order/show-cause notice and as such it was the petitioner who was obliged to find out the charges leveled against him. The respondent No. 3 rejected the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was aware of the suspension order/show-cause notice and as such it was the petitioner who was obliged to find out the charges leveled against him. The finding recorded by the respondent No. 3 is absolutely perverse. In fact it was the respondent No. 2 who was obliged to serve the suspension order/show-cause notice/charge-sheet upon the petitioner. The opposite party No. 2 has failed to address the issue in right perspective and as such the order dated 19.6.2014 cannot be sustained and is also liable to be set aside. 17. In Pooran Singh v. State, 2010(3) ADJ 659 , a Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 contemplates a full fledged inquiry before the licence/agreement of a fair price shop is cancelled. The Full Bench has held that as per the Government Order dated 1.7.2004 an opportunity of hearing is required before passing any order of cancellation. 18. In Writ C No. 3611 of 2014, Sanjay Kumar v. State , decided on 5.2.2016 a Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “The procedure for holding an inquiry for cancelling the licence of the fair price shop has been provided in the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 read with U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004. The aforesaid Government Order and Distribution Order came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB). The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 held that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter. The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 held that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry pursuant to the show-cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter. The aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge in his judgement and order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh’s case his Lordship observed that a fullfledged inquiry is necessary before cancelling the agreement and it would require service of the charges, alongwith material in support of each charge, the information about the place and date of inquiry, the statements of persons on whose complaint inquiry was started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry, the statements of the persons appearing before the Inquiry Officer. In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of licence to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show-cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice. It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge-sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. This is in addition to the show-cause notice issued for the purposes of suspension of the licence of the fair price shop.” 19. In Misc. Single Case No. 5520 of 2008, Laloo Singh v. State, decided on 5.6.2015 a Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “After peeping into the contentions of both the parties and the series of case laws, referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the cancellation of a agreement/licence of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to cancel such an agreement/licence, the authority concerned has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purposes including the principles of natural justice. The non-supply of a document utilized against the aggrieved person before the cancellation of his allotment of fair price shop licence/agreement offends the well-established principle that no person should be condemned unheard.” 20. The non-supply of a document utilized against the aggrieved person before the cancellation of his allotment of fair price shop licence/agreement offends the well-established principle that no person should be condemned unheard.” 20. In Abu Bakar v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (80) ALR 769, a Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “In view of the settled legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the cancellation of petitioner’s fair price shop agreement by respondent No. 3 in contravention of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Since the appellate authority failed to rectify the error committed by the licensing authority, respondent No. 3 the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be set aside alongwith the order of the licensing authority.” 21. In view of the settled legal position mentioned above before passing the impugned order cancelling the licence/agreement of fair price shop of the petitioner, the opposite parties were obliged to serve upon the petitioner a show-cause notice/charge-sheet requiring the petitioner to explain the charges leveled against him and thereafter the respondents were obliged to hold an inquiry against the petitioner before cancelling the fair price shop licence/agreement of the petitioner. In the present case the respondents have failed to establish that any such attempt was made on their part. In the circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 22. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.4.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushi Nagar and the order dated 19.6.2014 passed by the Commissioner Gorakhpur, Division-Gorakhpur, are hereby quashed. It is, however, left open to the respondent No. 2 to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with law.