JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the respondent No.3 at Annexure-E and the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. 2. The petitioner was granted the authorization to run a Fair Price Depot in the year 2004-05 under the provisions of the Karnataka Essential Commodities (Public Distribution System) Control Order, 1992. According to the petitioner, the distribution of the food grains to the cardholders was being made diligently by the petitioner. When this was the position, the competent authority, on a random check relating to the activities of the petitioner, have noticed that the distribution of the essential commodities in respect of 17 cards is contrary to the procedure laid down, had issued the show cause notice dated 22.09.2014. The petitioner, no doubt made a reply dated 23.10.2014. Subsequent thereto, the order dated 28.04.2015 is passed whereunder, the amount to be recovered from the petitioner was quantified and since the petitioner was alleged to have violated the terms, the authorization was also cancelled. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same was before the Appellate Authority, who has considered the appeal and dismissed the same through the order dated 27.11.2015 which is also impugned in this proceedings. 3. The respondents have filed their objection statement. They seek to sustain the action taken against the petitioner and in that regard, it is contended that the 17 cards for which the ration was drawn by the petitioner was against the bogus ration cards and therefore, the action as has been taken is in accordance with law. It is contended that in such circumstance, when there is a violation of the procedure, the action as taken against the petitioner is justified and does not call for interference. 4. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the petition papers. 5. Firstly, it is to be noticed that when this Court had considered a similar allegation in W.P.No.776/2016 dated 27.10.2016, had also taken into consideration the nature of the proceedings that is required to be initiated, when an allegation of holding unauthorized ration cards is made against the authorization holder. 5. Firstly, it is to be noticed that when this Court had considered a similar allegation in W.P.No.776/2016 dated 27.10.2016, had also taken into consideration the nature of the proceedings that is required to be initiated, when an allegation of holding unauthorized ration cards is made against the authorization holder. In that regard, it was held that, firstly a conclusion is to be reached as to whether ration drawn on such alleged bogus cards was utilized by the authorization holder or as to whether in fact the cards existed but the ration was being drawn by the authorization holder without distributing such ration to the cardholders. This factual aspect is required to be examined and thereafter a conclusion is to be reached. 6. In that background, a perusal of the present proceedings would disclose that as per the show cause notice issued, it is alleged against the petitioner that the 17 cards have been utilized by the petitioner to draw the ration which amounts to misappropriation. Though the learned Government Advocate places reliance on the reply submitted by the petitioner on 23.10.2014 which refers to an admission, in the nature of the observation made above, as to whether the bogus cards were created by the petitioner cannot be established by such admission, though the petitioner has stated with regard to the 17 cards being cancelled thereafter. Further, the order dated 28.04.2015 does not indicate the nature of the enquiry made to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the bogus cards were created by the petitioner or on the other hand, the cards which had been issued to the persons, who are entitled to draw ration has been misused by the petitioner. It is based on such conclusion that would be reached, the quantum of the misuse of the amount to be claimed is one of the aspects to be taken into consideration. 7. In the said process, if it is found that the petitioner himself has created such bogus cards and has drawn the ration during the said period, in such event, the cancellation of the authorization would be justified. In that regard, as noticed, since there is no clear indication in the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 with regard to the nature of the enquiry held, the learned Government Advocate was requested to secure the file pertaining to the proceedings. In that regard, as noticed, since there is no clear indication in the impugned order dated 28.04.2015 with regard to the nature of the enquiry held, the learned Government Advocate was requested to secure the file pertaining to the proceedings. The order sheet as maintained in the proceedings bearing No. INR:DRA (P) 65:2014-15, in which the impugned order is passed, it is seen that, except adjourning the case on four occasions and posting it for orders on 10.02.2015, no proceedings whatsoever has been held, so as to establish the allegation on the petitioner having created the bogus cards or having misused the cards which had been issued. 8. Therefore, unless a fact finding relating to the same is made, a consideration based only on the assumption that the excess ration has been drawn by the petitioner based on such bogus cards would not be sustainable. In that light, the Appellate Authority has also not adverted to this aspect and in that view, the orders dated 28.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 in its present form would not be sustainable. 9. In order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth such contention and the competent authority to consider these aspects and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, the orders dated 28.04.2015 and 27.11.2015 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the competent authority namely, the respondent No.3, who shall provide opportunity to the petitioner, consider the defense and on rendering a finding of fact, take a decision in accordance with law. Until such consideration is made, the benefit to the petitioner would not be available. However, if the consideration therein made by the respondent No.3 is in favour of the petitioner, at that juncture, the benefit will be available. Hence, I do not see reason to change the status which exists as on today. The respondent No.3 shall therefore conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible but, not later than two months from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished. The petition is accordingly disposed of.