JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 3. Petitioner by instituting these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has impeached the validity of the order dated 22.10.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, District Hardoi whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.04.2008, passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of the fair price shop license has been dismissed. 4. The facts of the case are that on the basis of two at random enquiries conducted by the Supply Inspector on 18.05.2007 and 03.06.2007 certain irregularities were found to have been committed by the petitioner while running the fair price shop and accordingly a First Information Report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act was lodged and the petitioner's fair price shop license was suspended on 11.06.2007. 5. The petitioner had filed an appeal under Clause 28(3) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 against the said suspension order dated 11.06.2007 which was allowed and the Sub Divisional Officer was directed to serve charge sheet to the petitioner and give him an opportunity of filing his reply/explanation. Accordingly, Sub Divisional Officer served a charge sheet dated 15.09.2007 to the petitioner. The said charge sheet is available on record as Annexure SA-1 appended to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner which contained six charges. 6. In respect of the aforesaid six charges, the petitioner was required to submit his reply/explanation. The petitioner, in pursuance of the aforesaid charge sheet dated 15.09.2007, submitted his reply on 24.09.2007 and there upon the impugned order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 22.10.2007 finding the petitioner guilty of all six counts. 7. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the charges contained in the charge sheet are vague and hence in absence of any definite charge against the petitioner, no proceedings ought to have been undertaken, appears to be correct. 8. Perusal of the charge sheet dated 15.09.2007 reveals that the said charge sheet contained six charges. Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the charges contained in the charge sheet are vague and hence in absence of any definite charge against the petitioner, no proceedings ought to have been undertaken, appears to be correct. 8. Perusal of the charge sheet dated 15.09.2007 reveals that the said charge sheet contained six charges. Charge No.1 as mentioned in the charge sheet is that at the time of inspection the fair price shop of the petitioner was found closed on account of which stock verification could not be done. This charge further states that the petitioner did not display the board containing the stock of the various commodities and the price thereof. 9. The petitioner in respect of the said charge has submitted reply, however, finding has been recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer that the petitioner failed to substantiate the reply given in respect of the said charge with any evidence. 10. In respect of charge No.2, it is interesting to note that the same finds mentioned in the charge sheet in the following words: - "[kk|kUu dk forj.k fu/kkfjr ek=k ls de ek=k esa forfjr dj fu/kkZfjr ewY; ls vf/kd ewY; izkIr fd;k tkrk gSA" 11. However, the same charge No.2 in the impugned order finds mentioned in the following words: - "vkjksi la[;k&2%& ch0ih0,y0 ykHkkFkhZ jkst'k 164406] fl;kjke 164447] f'kojkuh 164408] jktjkuh 164407] lqUnkjk 16446] ekrk nhu] 164445 us c;ku fn;k fd vki }kjk [kk|kUu dk forj.k fu/kkfjZr ekWx ls de ek=k esa forfjr dj fu/kkZfjr ewY; ls vf/kd izkIr fd;k tkrk gSA" 12. The difference between the charge No.2 mentioned in the charge sheet and that mentioned in the impugned order is not only apparent but is substantial inasmuch as in the charge sheet said charge is vaguely worded, whereas the impugned order makes a specific mention of the card holders with their card numbers who are said to have been distributed less quantity on a higher price. Similar discrepancy is found in respect of charge No.6 which in the charge sheet is vaguely worded. While discussing the said charge in the impugned order the Sub Divisional Officer has given specific instances in respect of card holders who were not distributed any commodities but alleged forged entries on their cards were made. 13. Similar discrepancy is found in respect of charge No.6 which in the charge sheet is vaguely worded. While discussing the said charge in the impugned order the Sub Divisional Officer has given specific instances in respect of card holders who were not distributed any commodities but alleged forged entries on their cards were made. 13. There is no dispute that before passing the order of cancellation of fair price shop license of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Officer or any other authority competent to do so is under legal obligation to provide proper and adequate opportunity to the fair price shop dealer to meet the charges. Unless and until the charges are specific in nature, the charged person will not be in a position to furnish the reply. 14. In the instant case, at least in respect of two charges, namely, charge Nos. 2 and 6, the petitioner was not apprised of specific charges in the charge sheet, however, those specific charges have not been only mentioned and discussed but have been relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the impugned order. 15. The appellate authority has also failed to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the mater and has only reiterated the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I have no hesitation to hold that in absence of specific charges, specially in respect of charge Nos. 2 and 6 mentioned in the charge sheet, the petitioner in this case has been deprived of legitimate and adequate opportunity to submit his reply which, in my considered opinion, amounts to violation of principals of natural justice. Thus, the orders impugned in this writ petition are not sustainable and are liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.10.2007, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, Hardoi cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner and the appellate order dated 25.04.2008, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which are contained as Annexure Nos. 2 and 1respectively, are hereby quashed. 18. The matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, District Hardoi with a direction to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove in this judgment. 2 and 1respectively, are hereby quashed. 18. The matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sandila, District Hardoi with a direction to decide the matter afresh in light of the observations made hereinabove in this judgment. It is reiterated that the petitioner shall be served with a fresh charge sheet which will contain specific charges and the petitioner thereafter will be permitted to submit his reply and lead evidence in support of his case. The aforesaid exercise of deciding the matter afresh shall be expedited and completed within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 19. However, it is clarified that the interim arrangement which was made subsequent to the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop will continue to operate till the matter is decided afresh by the Sub Divisional Officer in terms of this judgment. The said arrangement shall abide the final decision which may be passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 20. There will be no order as to costs.