JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. -- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the opposite party no.2 as well as the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the opposite party no. 3 whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 28 (3) of Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order of cancellation has been passed in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without proving the allegation against the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that on the basis of a complaint the fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegation. In the reply it was specifically pleaded that the supply of wheat for A.P.L. card holders was short due to which the required quantity of 10 Kg. wheat per card holder to A.P.L. card holders could not be made. The impugned order has been passed relying on the statement of certain card holders who have stated that they have either not received any wheat or have received less wheat in the months of September, October & November, 2010. 4. Submission is that statements of such card holders were neither provided to the petitioner nor was given any opportunity to cross-examine the said card holders in the inquiry. 5. It is also submitted that in the inquiry no specific finding was recorded as to whom the wheat was not supplied and who were the card holders who were given less quantity of wheat. The impugned order has been passed on the presumption that the supply made by the petitioner is not satisfactory. No effort was made to examine the relevant records, such as stock register etc. The appeal preferred against the impugned order has been dismissed reiterating the findings recorded by the competent authority and without considering the plea taken in the appeal. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has failed to show that the charges made against the petitioner were not proved and he has failed to show his innocence. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has failed to show that the charges made against the petitioner were not proved and he has failed to show his innocence. In the inquiry it has been found that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory and as such the charges stand proved. The petitioner has taken the plea of political rivalry which has not been found proved. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 8. The perusal of impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop license of petitioner, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 2, to the writ petition, indicates that the competent authority has considered the statements of certain card holders whose details have been given in the form of a chart in the impugned order. However, the impugned order does not disclose that any opportunity of examination of these card holders was provided to the petitioner in the inquiry and whether the statements of the said card holders were provided to the petitioner. 9. It is also evident from the order impugned that the allegation on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner have not been proved on the basis of evidence on record. The competent authority has come to the conclusion on the basis of presumptions and surmises. 10. It is needless to observe that in the inquiry it is incumbent upon the inquiry officer to prove the charges on the basis of evidence on record, merely on presumption the charges cannot be said to be proved. In case the delinquent licensee has not been able to submit his reply effectively it does not mean that the charges stand proved against him. The competent authority has nowhere discussed the allegation of non-supply or less supply of wheat to card holders and how the said charge stand proved against the petitioner. 11. In view of above, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eye of law. The appellate authority has failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and has merely reiterated the conclusion drawn by the competent authority while cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. The appellate order, as such, is also not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. The appellate authority has failed to take into consideration the above aspect of the matter and has merely reiterated the conclusion drawn by the competent authority while cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. The appellate order, as such, is also not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. The writ petition is allowed. 13. The order dated 19.6.2012 passed by the opposite party no. 2 as well as the order dated 11.1.2011 passed by the opposite party no. 3, are hereby set aside with liberty to the competent authority to hold inquiry afresh from the stage of submission of reply to the charge sheet and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.