JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. Assailing the impugned orders dated 02.02.2015, 15.05.2015 & 08.06.2015 passed by the Director of Consumer Goods, Food & Supply Department whereby the petitioner’s super kerosene oil licence was cancelled and also imposing fine as provided in Schedule ‘E’ of Paragraph-9 of the said Control Order along with penalty. FACT OF THE CASE 2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows : The petitioner’s firm has been carrying on business of kerosene oil as agent since 1974. Curiously on 22nd August, 2014 the respondent no.2 the Director of Consumer Goods directed the oil companies to reduce allocation of 196 K.L of the petitioner’s firm. Since that order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner moved before this Hon’ble Court challenging the said order of reduction of allocation of the petitioner’s firm by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P No. 24592 (W) of 2014. Immediately thereafter, the respondent no.2 cancelled the said order dated 22.08.2014 and issued a subsequent order on 25th August, 2014. The petitioner then challenging the subsequent order dated 25.08.2014 filed another writ petition before this Hon’ble High Court being W.P. No. 24665 (W) of 2014. The said order dated 25.08.2014 was also withdrawn by the respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 again on 28.08.2014 issued another order of inspection. The said order for inspection dated 28.08.2014 is quoted below :- “It has been decided to hold an inspection in respect of utilization of S.K. Oil by M/s G.S.N. Murty of Kharagpore Sub-Division for the period from April, 2010 to March, 2014. An Inspecting team has been formed order……….of Shri Sankar Narayan Bankura, Dy. The said order for inspection dated 28.08.2014 is quoted below :- “It has been decided to hold an inspection in respect of utilization of S.K. Oil by M/s G.S.N. Murty of Kharagpore Sub-Division for the period from April, 2010 to March, 2014. An Inspecting team has been formed order……….of Shri Sankar Narayan Bankura, Dy. Director of D.D.P & S as per Order of Commission of Food……named 9I) Ardhendu Gayen, (ii) Prasanta Sarkar, (iii) Tamal Chakraborty will be members of Inspector……They will undertake the Inspections to find out (1) The status of lifting of K. Oil M/s G.S.N. Murty, Kharagpur Sub Division from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Both an account of his licence and on……tagged allocation of M/s Jain Traders which was tagged allocation of M/s Jain Traders which was tagged with him on and from 03.06.2013; (2) Maintenance of Sale and Stock Register of M/s G.S.N. Murty during the period; (3) Status of actual figure of K. Oil supplied by M/s G.S.N Murty to all dealers tagged with him during period; (4) Status of actual figure of K. Oil received by these Dealers as mentioned in the Sale and Stock Registers of these Dealers during the period; (5) Status of supply of Kerosene Oil these Dealers to either Ration Card holders or to other dealers during the period; (6) Status of Sale of K. Oil second set of dealers who were supplied K. Oil by the Dealers who received K. Oil from M/s G.S.N. Murty during the ……..;(7) Status of actual figure of K. Oil which was lifted by M/S. G.S.N. Murty from H.P.C.L but not supplied to the dealers tagged with him during the period; (8) Status of K. Oil actually received by tagged dealers of M/s G.S.N. Murty on the basis of Sale and Stock Registers during the period to either Ration Card Holders or Dealers tagged dealers during the period; (9) Actual figure of Sale of K. Oil by these Dealers; (10) Actual figure of K. Oil supplied by tagged dealers of G.S.N. Murty to Dealers tagged with them on the basis of Sale and Stock Register of the Dealers. The Inspecting Team will complete the inspection with a period of one month from the gate of the …….Inspection in which they will need to visit the outlets of M/s. G.S.N. Murty and of ……at the Sale and Stock Registers and other related Books of Accounts. The Inspecting Team will complete the inspection with a period of one month from the gate of the …….Inspection in which they will need to visit the outlets of M/s. G.S.N. Murty and of ……at the Sale and Stock Registers and other related Books of Accounts. This has approval of the commission.” Since the respondent no.2 is not authorised under Paragraph 15 of the Control Order to form Inspecting Team and conduct inspection at the agent premises who carries on business as an agent in District, therefore the authority concerned had withdrawn the said order dated 28.08.2014 vide order dated 27th January, 2015. The Order dated 28th August, 2014 was only served upon the petitioner on 2nd September, 2014. Immediately thereafter challenging the said order the petitioner filed another writ petition being W.P No.25641 (W) of 2014. In the hearing of the said application the learned Advocate for the respondents submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the order dated 28th August, 2014 has been subsequently withdrawn by the authority as a result thereof the Hon’ble Court was pleased to dispose of the said application. Thereafter again on 8th September, 2014 the Sub Divisional Controller Food and Supply issued another order for inspection by the same Inspecting Team as formed earlier. As per Paragraph 15 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order 1968 the Sub Divisional Controller is not the competent authority to issue letter for inspection, it is the District Magistrate who has the authority to issue order of inspection and since no opportunity as per Paragraph 9 (A) (I) was given to the petitioner by the authority therefore, the petitioner challenging the order dated 8th September, 2014 filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 26448 (W) of 2014. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Bench. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal the petitioner preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to dispose of the said appeal and the application being AST No.72 of 2015 with ASTA No.47 of 2015 with the following directions :- “In the aforesaid circumstances, the order of cancellation already issued by the competent authority cannot be sustained and the said order dated 18th February, 2015 therefore, stands quashed. On the payer of the learned Additional Advocate General. On the payer of the learned Additional Advocate General. Liberty is granted to the respondent-Director of Consumer Goods to issue further order in relation to the earlier show-cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 2nd February, 2015 by granting opportunity to the appellant-petitioners herein to submit an explanation in writing for the alleged discrepancies in respect of the stock of the kerosene oil and thereafter proceed further in the matter in accordance with the prescribed procedures. With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose of both the application as well as the appeal upon treating the said appeal as on day’s list. We also make it clear that we have not decided any issue raised before us on merits and all the points are kept open for adjudication in future by the competent authority and/or legal forum as the case may be.” Pursuant to the Hon’ble Division Bench direction the Director of Consumer Goods on 15th May, 2015 issued the order granting opportunity to the petitioner to submit an explanation in writing as to the alleged discrepancies in respect of stock of kerosene oil in connection with earlier show cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 02.02.2015. It was also directed in that order that the explanation in writing has to be submitted within 25th May, 2015 by the petitioner. Against that order the petitioner on 22nd May, 2015 submitted a representation to the Director of Consumer Goods Food and Supply Department denying all the allegations. In the said letter the petitioner sought for some documents so as to give effective reply to the show cause notice dated 15th May, 2015. But without supplying any documents as sought for by the petitioner the authority on 2nd June, 2015 issued a letter to the petitioner to appear before the Director of Consumer Goods in a hearing scheduled to be held on 8th June, 2015. Thereafter the petitioner on 5th June, 2015 prayed before the Director of Consumer Goods , Food and Supply Department to supply foundation materials for giving effective reply to the show cause notice dated 15th May, 2015. Since the petitioner did not appear in the hearing on 8th June, 2015 before the Director of Consumer Goods, Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal, the Director by the impugned order dated 8th June, 2015 cancelled the petitioner’s licence for kerosene oil imposing fine along with penalty. Since the petitioner did not appear in the hearing on 8th June, 2015 before the Director of Consumer Goods, Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal, the Director by the impugned order dated 8th June, 2015 cancelled the petitioner’s licence for kerosene oil imposing fine along with penalty. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained an interim order not to give any effect to the order dated 8th June 2015. SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS 3. Mr. K.K. Bandyopadhyay, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that vide order dated 9th September, 2014 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P No.25641 (W) of 2014 it was pointed out on behalf of the state/respondents that inspection directed by the respondent no.2 vide his Memo dated 28th August, 2014 stood cancelled. Therefore, Mr. Bandyopadhyay argued that since the inspection was cancelled there was no question of submitting an enquiry report. 4. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further submitted that it is only recorded in the impugned order dated 8th June, 2015 that written statement submitted by the petitioner firm on 22nd May, 2015 was examined all findings of the Inspection Team as submitted in its enquiry report on 27th January, 2015. 5. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further vehemently urged that by the representation dated 22nd May, 2015 it was pointed out by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 that no inspection was at all carried out and no explanation was sought for from the petitioner. Therefore, Mr. Bandyopadhyay strongly argued that since the order of inspection dated 28th August, 2014 was withdrawn, there could not have been any inspection in the eye of law. 6. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also strongly submitted that by the reply dated 22nd May, 2015 as well as 5th June, 2015 the charges levelled against the petitioner were denied and the respondent no.2 was requested to supply all materials and documents prior to carrying out the adjudication on the same issue but no such documents/materials were supplied to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 8th June, 2015 ex parte. 7. Mr. Bandyopadhyay drew my attention at Page 176 of the writ petition dated 8th June, 2015. 7. Mr. Bandyopadhyay drew my attention at Page 176 of the writ petition dated 8th June, 2015. The extract of the same is quoted below :- “Whereas in the light of the written statement, submitted by the Appellant-petitioners on 22.5.15, it is required to examine the findings of the Inspection Team, which submitted its enquiry report on 27.1.15 before coming to a decision of violation by the Appellant-petitioners of the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, as amended from time to time.” 8. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also drew my attention at paragraph 8 of the impugned order dated 15th May, 2015 as appears at page-163 which is quoted below : “8. Whereas the Inspection Team conducted enquiry and submitted enquiry report on 27th January, 2015”. 9. Mr. Bandyopadhyay reiterated in his argument on the ground that the order dated 28th August, 2014 was withdrawn by the authority. Thereafter no further inspection/enquiry was held by the Inspecting Team and the petitioner was not at all informed that further inspection would be held by the respondent authority. 10. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further contended that vide order dated 8th September, 2014 being memo no.602 issued by the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supply the petitioner was only informed that in order to find out the status of distribution of super kerosene oil to the petitioner’s firm it has been decided to hold an inspection for the period from April 2010 to March 2014 for public interest and the Inspecting Team will complete the inspection within a period of one months from the date of commencement of inspection. 11. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further contended the only inspection report prepared on 27th January, 2015 by the Inspecting Team was on the basis of the order dated 28th August, 2014 but such order of inspection dated 28th August, 2014 was subsequently withdrawn by the authority as the said order was not passed following the prescribed procedure under Paragraph 15 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968. 12. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further strongly urged that no reply has been given by the petitioner against the order dated 22nd May, 2015. Mr. Bandyopadhyay reiterated that the so called report appearing at Page-63 to 136 was held pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014 which was subsequently withdrawn and thereafter no inspection was held at all. 13. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Mr. Bandyopadhyay reiterated that the so called report appearing at Page-63 to 136 was held pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014 which was subsequently withdrawn and thereafter no inspection was held at all. 13. It is vehemently urged by Mr. Bandyopadhyay that in the impugned order dated 15th May, 2015 as well as the 8th June 2015 the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 was relied on though it is evident from the records that the order dated 28th August, 2014 was withdrawn by the authority, therefore, the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 was nothing but a outcome of the order dated 28th August, 2014 since withdrawn by the authority, as such the so called inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 cannot be looked into. 14. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further strongly argued that after the Hon’ble Division Bench order no inspection was held upon supplying the documents prayed for by the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd May, 2015 and 5th June, 2015. 15. Mr. Bandyopadhyay further pointed out that the Pages 26, 27, 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition used by the respondent authority are internal correspondences of the respondent and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same nor the petitioner was either informed on supplied with those correspondences. 16. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also further contended that it is revealed from the letter dated 8th September, 2014 that by memo no.602 dated 8th September, 2014 the inspection including force of shifting and distribution of super kerosene oil by the petitioner from April 2010 to March, 2014 was carried out. Therefore, on the self same date by further memo no. 603 the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supply asked for some manpower to execute the inspection. Explaining pages 26, 27, and 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition which are internal correspondence of the department to provide manpower Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that the entire exercise was carried out by the department based on order dated 28th August, 2014 which was withdrawn by the authority. The so called report dated 27th January, 2015 as prepared on the basis of the order dated 28th August, 2014 which has no evidentiary value no further inspection was held by the authority at the petitioner’s business place. 17. Mr. The so called report dated 27th January, 2015 as prepared on the basis of the order dated 28th August, 2014 which has no evidentiary value no further inspection was held by the authority at the petitioner’s business place. 17. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also contended that though there is a provision of appeal but since no inspection was held by the authority after giving notice to the petitioner therefore that inaction on the part of the respondent authority is violative of the principle of natural justice, which cannot be adjudicated by the appellate forum. 18. Mr. Bandyopadhyay also urged that no documents have been furnished by the respondent authority to the petitioner as sought for vide letter dated 22nd May, 2015 as well as 5th June, 2015 therefore, the impugned order dated 8th June, 2015 is against the principle of natural justice as it has not evidently complied with the prescribed procedure as laid down in Para 9 (A) (i) of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968 as amended time to time. Therefore, Mr. Bandyopadhyay strongly contended that though there is an alternative remedy but since the impugned action shows deliberate and willful violation of the principle of natural justice the petitioner is entitled to challenge the said action before this Hon’ble Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. Mr., Bandyopadhyay strongly contended that in the writ court party has to plead a case and adduce sufficient evidence to establish his pleading by annexing evidence. In support of his contention Mr. Bandyopadhyay relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 2010 (10) SCC Page 677 Paragraph 24 which is quoted below :- “Paragraph-24-It is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana this Court has observed as under : (SCC P.543, Para-13) “13……..In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point….there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to the pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. (emphasis added)” 20. Mr. Bandyopadhyay, learned Counsel, also submits that the point of alternative remedies is not a bar to entertain a writ petition when it is found that the order impugned is issued by violating the natural justice, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner. Therefore the arbitrary action on the part of the authority could only be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court by filing application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention Mr. Bandyopadhyay relies on the following Hon’ble Apex Court decisions : (1) (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai And Others) & (2) (2007) 9 SCC Page-593 (Popcorn Entertainment And Another vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. And Another) 21. In conclusion Mr. Bandyopadhyay submitted that impugned suspension notice dated 2nd February, 2015 the show cause notice dated 15th March, 2015 and the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015 should be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court thereby directing the authority to restore the allocation of the petitioner forthwith. 22. Per contra, Mr. L.K. Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that pursuant to the Hon’ble Division Bench order show cause notice was issued on 15th May, 2015 against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to give written reply against the show cause notice accordingly, the petitioner had given reply against show cause notice but the petitioner choose not to appear in the hearing despite notice. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 8th June, 2015 was taken by the authority. That being the scenario it cannot be submitted that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing as has been projected by Mr. Bandyopadhyay. 23. Mr. Therefore, the impugned decision dated 8th June, 2015 was taken by the authority. That being the scenario it cannot be submitted that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing as has been projected by Mr. Bandyopadhyay. 23. Mr. Gupta further contended that the Hon’ble Division Bench in its decision clearly indicated that the Court did not go into the merit of the matter and all points were kept open to be decided by the authority from the stage of suspension order dated 02.02.2015. 24. Mr. Gupta further vehemently urged that inspection was held on 13th November, 2014. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta referred to 2nd paragraph of the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 appears at page-63 and Mr. Gupta also drew my attention to Page-26, 27 and 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent authority and emphasized his submission that on the basis of the order dated 8th September, 2014 being memo no.602 on the same date the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supply, Kharagpur by memo no.603 requested the District Magistrate to provide necessary manpower for carrying out the inspection immediately. Therefore, it cannot be contended that no inspection was held by the authority. Thus, it is established that there was no violation of natural justice by the authority to come to the decision dated 8th June, 2015. 25. Mr. Gupta also relied on various portions of the impugned order dated 15th May, 2015 issued by the Director of Consumer Goods of the petitioner pursuant to Hon’ble Division Bench order. 26. Mr. Gupta further contended that after receiving the show cause notice dated 15th May, 2015 the petitioner by letter dated 22nd May, 2015 again asked for production of foundation materials on the basis of which that show cause notice was issued. 27. Mr. Gupta also took this Court to various portions of the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015 and emphasized his argument on the point that the petitioner’s misappropriated 3686 K.L of highly subsidies S.K. Oil which he was supposed to supply to the dealers during that period. 28. Mr. 27. Mr. Gupta also took this Court to various portions of the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015 and emphasized his argument on the point that the petitioner’s misappropriated 3686 K.L of highly subsidies S.K. Oil which he was supposed to supply to the dealers during that period. 28. Mr. Gupta also vehemently argued that since the petitioner was given adequate opportunity to controvert the show cause notice dated 15th May, 2015 in writing but the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd May, 2015 as well as 2nd June, 2015 only prayed for supply of foundation materials instead of giving detailed reply in writing. Therefore, it cannot be sustained before the Court that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015. 29. Mr. Gupta further strongly urged that Paragraph 9 (A) (i) has been complied with by the authority before coming to the impugned decision dated 8th June 2015. Mr. Gupta also relied on Schedule ‘E’ of the Paragraph-9 (A) (i) which is quoted below :- “Schedule E: Fine will include selling price to ration card holders of the quantity of S.K. Oil involved in the case and a penalty @ Rs.40000/- per KL.” “9(A) Procedure for dealing with violation of provisions of this Control Order by S.K. Oil Dealers : (i) If an S.K. Oil Dealer or his/her authorized representative or any other person acting on his/her behalf contravenes any of the provisions of this Order or any of the regulations made there under or any of the conditions of his/her licence, or any discrepancy of stocks is detected, the DCG in Kolkata and Bidhan Nagar areas or the District Magistrate in other districts or the State Government through an officer not below the rank of Assistant Director shall issue a notice to the concerned Dealer asking for explanation in writing for such discrepancy”. 30. In conclusion Mr. Gupta submitted that there is no violation of natural justice committed by the authority before coming to the impugned decision of cancellation of the licence dated 8th June, 2015 which deserved Hon’ble Court’s interference. Mr. Gupta further contended that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved by the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015 then the petitioner’s only remedy to prefer statutory appeal as provided under the Control order. In support of his contention Mr. Mr. Gupta further contended that if the petitioner is at all aggrieved by the impugned cancellation order dated 8th June, 2015 then the petitioner’s only remedy to prefer statutory appeal as provided under the Control order. In support of his contention Mr. Gupta relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 2008 (11) SCC Page 502 (Board of Directors, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation And Another vs. K.C. Rahi) Paragraph-8 which is quoted below : “Para-8-In the instant case we have been taken through various documents and also form the representation dated 19.10.1993 filed by the respondent himself it would clearly show that he knew that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him yet he chose not to participate in the enquiry proceedings at his own risk. In such event plea of principle of natural justice is deemed to have been waived and he is estopped from raising the question of non-compliance with principles of natural justice. In the representation submitted by him on 19.10.1993 the subject itself reds “DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRIES”. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent is a law graduate, therefore, he cannot take a plea of ignorance of law. Ignorance of law is no excuse much less by a person who is a law graduate himself.” DECISION WITH REASONS 31. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and after perusing the records I find that admittedly no reply was given by the authority to the petitioner’s letter dated 22nd May, 2015 as well as dated 2nd June, 2015 32. This Court also cannot ignore the fact that after inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 no further inspection was carried out by the authority. The Court also cannot overlook the fact that on 27th June, 2015 inspection was held on the basis of order dated 28th August, 2014 which was subsequently withdrawn by the authority. Therefore it was the obligation on the part of the respondent authority to hold further inspection after giving notice to the petitioner but it is an admitted position that no further inspection was ever held by the authority after giving notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent emphasized on the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 though it is evident from that report that said inspection was conducted pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent emphasized on the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 though it is evident from that report that said inspection was conducted pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014. I also cannot shut my eyes to the fact appearing from inspection report that who were appointed to assist the inspecting team to conduct the inspection dated 27th January, 2015 was the same set of persons. It is also cannot be ignored that the inspection report was neither signed by the petitioner nor the representative of the petitioner nor there is any signature of any witnesses. 33. It is also evident in Paragraph 8 of the impugned order dated 15th May, 2015 and also at Page 176 of the writ petition only the report dated 27th January, 2015 are mentioned which was held pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014. But admittedly that order was subsequently withdrawn by the authority, therefore, it is admitted fact that after 27th January, 2015 there is no existence of any report of inspection in the eye of law. The pages-26, 27 and 28 of the affidavit in opposition as relied on by Learned Additional Advocate General are nothing but the internal official correspondence. 34. It is also the admitted position that without furnishing the records as sought for by the petitioner the impugned decision dated 8th June, 2015 was taken ex parte by the authority. Though it is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the order dated 28th August, 2014 was an order directing that an inspection would be held but the inspection was actually held on 13th November, 2014. Thereafter on 27th January, 2015 the inspection report was submitted by the inspecting team but it is evident from the inspection report dated 27th January, 2015 that pursuant to the order dated 28th August, 2014 inspection was conducted though that order dated 28th August, 2014 was subsequently withdrawn by the authority therefore as such there is no inspection report in the eye of law. In my considered view the report dated 27th January, 2015 as has been projected by Mr. Gupta as the inspection report is non-est in the eye of law as the order dated 28th August, 2014 was withdrawn by the authority. In my considered view the report dated 27th January, 2015 as has been projected by Mr. Gupta as the inspection report is non-est in the eye of law as the order dated 28th August, 2014 was withdrawn by the authority. Therefore, in my considered view Paragraph-9 (ii) of the Control Order, 2014 has not been complied with by the authority thereby holding enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner. 35. I also find that by not supplying the documents as prayed for by the petitioner vide letter dated 22nd June, 2015 as well as 5th June, 2015 the impugned extreme decision was taken by the Director of Consumer Goods ex parte against the petitioner thereby cancelling the licence with immediate effect and also imposing fine and penalty under Schedule E of the Paragraph 9 of the said Control Order 2014 which is in clear violation of the principle of natural justice and thus cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 36. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 2nd February, 2015, 15th May, 2015 as well as 8th June, 2015 issued by the Director of Consumer Goods are hereby quashed and set aside. 37. I direct the respondent no.2 the Director of Consumer Goods West Bengal Food and Supply Department to hold a fresh inspection as per Paragraph-9 (ii) of the said Control Order, 2014 after giving notice to the petitioner and thereafter issue fresh show cause notice and conclude the entire proceeding within twelve(12) weeks in accordance with law. 38. With this aforesaid directions this writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. 39. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment if applied for, be supplied to the parties after fulfilling all the formalities. Later, 27.04.2016 After delivery of the judgment Mr. Amitesh Banerjee prays for stay of operation of the Judgment. Prayer is entertained and refused.