JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 20.10.2012 and 20.01.2015 whereby the license of fair price shop of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was a fair price shop licensee for gram panchayat Deeh, development block Bichhiya, tehsil Sadar, district Unnao. On a complaint made by one Radhey Shyam, the fair price shop license of petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29.6.2012 and a show cause notice was issued to petitioner alleging therein that certain ration cards have been found to be issued in duplicate and some forged ration cards in the name of persons, who are not the resident of the village, have been issued and petitioner had been getting the essential commodities on the basis of those ration cards and is guilty of misutilizing the said essential commodities. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order had filed appeal under Clause 28 (3) U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (for short 'Distribution Order 2004') registered as Appeal No. 1873/11-12 and said appeal was decided by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.09.2012 whereby the matter was remanded to the competent authority with direction to provide copies of complaint, enquiry report and statement, etc. which were recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh giving opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was also directed to submit records with respect to distribution of essential commodities for the last six months along with certified copy of the order dated 10.09.2012. Thereafter, notice dated 08.10.2012 was issued to petitioner calling for reply. The petitioner in compliance thereof submitted his reply dated 15.10.2012 and requested the opposite party no. 3 for opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. The opposite party no. 3, however, without providing opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop license of petitioner in most arbitrary and illegal manner. 4. The petitioner in compliance thereof submitted his reply dated 15.10.2012 and requested the opposite party no. 3 for opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. The opposite party no. 3, however, without providing opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop license of petitioner in most arbitrary and illegal manner. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the competent authority, however, in the counter affidavit the opposite parties have taken the stand that the competent authority while passing the cancellation order had considered the entire material on record including the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the cancellation order. The said appeal was registered as Appeal No. 166/2012-13, however, the appellate authority without properly considering the contention raised by the petitioner has rejected the appeal. 6. Submission is that under no stretch of imagination the petitioner could be held responsible for the alleged irregularity or illegality as it is not the work of the petitioner being licensee to issue ration cards to the residents of the village concerned and as per the Distribution Order 2004, particularly Clause 5 and 6, the responsibility to identify the families living below poverty line (BPL) is on the Food Officer and on his report the data is to be verified by the designated authority. The said authority shall also certify the correctness of the information contained in the proforma and report of the Food Officer for approval. The Gram Sabha shall finalize the list of beneficiaries belonging to BPL and Antyodaya categories drawn up by the designated authority in respect of the area under their respective jurisdiction and where there is no Gram Sabha, the Food Officer shall finalize the list of beneficiaries belonging to BPL and Antyodaya categories within their respective jurisdiction. The Food Officer is also required to ensure that the distribution of essential commodities is carried out in a fair and proper manner to the valid ration card holders. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is letter dated 15.01.2013 issued by the Supply Inspector, Sadar, Unnao with respect to the information asked by the petitioner under Right to Information Act (RTI). In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure-8 to the writ petition which is letter dated 15.01.2013 issued by the Supply Inspector, Sadar, Unnao with respect to the information asked by the petitioner under Right to Information Act (RTI). As per the said letter, the work of issuance of ration card is of the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari of the Gram Sabha concerned and the responsibility for issuance of wrong and forged ration card shall be on the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has also relied on the Government Order dated 10.08.2007 wherein it is provided that the work of distribution of essential commodities to card holders is the responsibility of the Supervisors appointed by the District Magistrate. 8. It is contended that in view of the scheme of things with respect to preparation and issuance of ration cards aforesaid, the licensee of a fair price shop is not concerned with the preparation and issuance of ration cards and petitioner as such cannot be held guilty of the alleged charges. 9. Learned standing counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit, on the other hand submits that the petitioner had not given any effective reply to the charge-sheet in the enquiry. The petitioner had misused the essential commodities lifted by him. In the enquiry, it has been found that 74 ration cards were in the fake names who were not the residents of the Gram Sabha concerned whereas 28 ration cards were issued in double to single person. It is submitted that it was the responsibility of the petitioner to have got the said ration cards verified before issuing essential commodities on the said ration cards. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 11. As per the Distribution Order 2004, the State Government under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued the said Distribution Order providing the procedure for the distribution of essential commodities to the card holders who may be in the category of APL, BPL and Antyodaya. 11. As per the Distribution Order 2004, the State Government under Section 3 Essential Commodities Act, 1955 has issued the said Distribution Order providing the procedure for the distribution of essential commodities to the card holders who may be in the category of APL, BPL and Antyodaya. As per clause 5 of the Distribution Order 2004, the work of identifying the families living below poverty line is of the Food Officer who shall undertake identification of families living Below the Poverty Line (BPL) including the Antyodaya families as per the estimates adopted by the State Government. The list of such beneficiaries is to be prepared by the Food Officer on the basis of data collected by him on a proforma. The said data shall be verified and certified by the designated authority. The Gram Sabha shall finalize the list of beneficiaries living below the poverty line and antyodaya categories drawn by the designated authority in respect of the area under their respective jurisdiction. Where there is no Gram Sabha, Food Officer shall finalize the list of beneficiaries belonging to BPL and Antyodaya categories within their respective jurisdiction. Clause 6 of the Distribution Order 2004 provides that Food Officer shall ensure that no qualified resident is denied a ration card under the order. He shall also ensure issuance of distinctive ration cards to APL, BPL and Antyodaya families in accordance with the orders issued by the State Government from time to time in this regard. It also provides that the designated authority on being directed by the Food Officer shall issue a ration card of appropriate category within one month of the date of receipt of the application after necessary checks and verification but only after the approval of the Food Officer. Clause 7 of the Distribution Order 2004 provides that the Food Officer and on his approval designated authority may at any time add to, amend, vary or rescind any ration card. 12. As such, as per the scheme in vogue, it is evidently clear that it is the responsibility of the Food Officer, designated authority and the Gram Sabha to finalize the list of beneficiaries families belong to APL, BPL and Antyodaya categories and ensure proper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. 13. 12. As such, as per the scheme in vogue, it is evidently clear that it is the responsibility of the Food Officer, designated authority and the Gram Sabha to finalize the list of beneficiaries families belong to APL, BPL and Antyodaya categories and ensure proper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. 13. As per the Government Order dated 10.08.2007, it is the responsibility of the Supervisor to ensure proper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The Supervisor is to be appointed by the District Magistrate concerned. 14. It is also to be noted that the petitioner under RTI had sought certain information pursuant to which the Supply Inspector, Sadar, Unnao vide letter dated 15.01.2013 has informed the petitioner that the work of preparation of ration card in a Gram Sabha is of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikar and for issuance of wrong and forged ration cards the responsibility shall lie on the Gram Pradhan as well as Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, as such, I am of the considered view that the allegations levelled against the petitioner could not have been attributed to the petitioner and the petitioner being a fair price shop licensee could not have been held guilty of the alleged charge. In case the authorities had found that certain wrong and forged ration cards were issued and some duplicate ration cards have been issued; then the competent authority should have taken up the matter against all such persons and authorities who were responsible for the wrong preparation, issuance and distribution of such ration cards, however, for that purpose the petitioner could not have been held guilty and his fair price shop license could not have been cancelled. 15. It appears that no action has been taken against the responsible guilty officers/officials and petitioner has been made the escape goat. The conduct of the authorities in this regard cannot be appreciated. There is nothing on record to indicate that any action has been taken against the persons who were involved in the preparation, issuance and distribution of the alleged wrong and forged ration cards. 16. It is also to be taken note of that the petitioner in his pleadings has specifically pleaded that he had submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued to him which was not considered by the concerning competent authority while passing the impugned order of cancellation. 16. It is also to be taken note of that the petitioner in his pleadings has specifically pleaded that he had submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued to him which was not considered by the concerning competent authority while passing the impugned order of cancellation. The order impugned also does not indicate that the reply of the petitioner was considered by the opposite party no. 3 while cancelling the fair price shop license of petitioner, however, in the counter affidavit the opposite parties have vaguely and in most cursory manner submitted that the reply of petitioner and objections were perused while passing the impugned order. This itself reflects the manner in which the authorities have proceeded with the matter and have passed the impugned order. 17. It is also taken note of that the appellate authority without properly considering this material aspect of the matter that the petitioner could not have been held responsible for the alleged charge has rejected the appeal and dittoed the finding of the competent authority. 18. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders impugned i.e., 20.10.2012 and 20.01.2015 are set-aside. Consequences shall follow.