JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with following prayers: (i) issue a writ, order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 passed by Opposite Party No.3 (contained in annexure no.1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ order in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the allotment/license of the petitioner on the basis of impugned order. (iii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and (iv) award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition is that Opposite Party No.5 was a fair price shop holder of village Panchayat - Khanpur Chapra, Tehsil - Tiloi, District - Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar. It is stated that Opposite Party No.5 submitted his resignation before Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned, on 16.04.2012, which was supported with an affidavit and on the same date by Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned an endorsement was made on the said resignation letter to the Supply Inspector concerned to submit his report, however, on the same date resignation was accepted and the licence of fair price shop of Opposite Party No.5 was cancelled and the Block Development Officer was directed to fix a date for open meeting to select any other fair price shop holder after complying with the Government Orders. On 20.04.2012 a open meeting of Gram Panchayat was convened and the petitioner was nominated to run the fair price shop, which was vacant due to alleged resignation of Opposite Party No.5 and the petitioner was appointed as the licence holder of said fair price shop. Later on, Opposite Party No.5 has submitted a letter dated 31.05.2012 to District Magistrate, Chatrapati Shahu ji Maharaj Nagar to the effect that a forged signature of petitioner has been made on resignation later as well as on affidavit on the strength of which her fair price shop has been cancelled. On the said letter an endorsement was made by the District Magistrate to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar for inquiry and information to the District Magistrate concerned in this regard. On the said letter an endorsement was made by the District Magistrate to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar for inquiry and information to the District Magistrate concerned in this regard. However, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar himself instead of making any report to District Magistrate, Chatrapati Shahu ji Maharaj, made an order dated 24th July, 2012 (C.A. 11 to the counter affidavit ) that in case Opposite Party No.5 is aggrieved by the said order, she may file a case before the Competent Court and application of the petitioner dated 31.05.2012 (C.A. 10 to the counter affidavit) was disposed of accordingly. Aggrieved by the said order, the Opposite Party No.5 filed an statutory appeal before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad being Appeal No.43/2013, which was allowed vide order dated 30.09.2015 and the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 16.04.2012 was set aside and the licence of fair price shop of Smt. Surya Kala Devi (Petitioner) was cancelled and the shop of Opposite Party No.5 was restored. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kuldeep Pati Tripathi, Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.5 Mr. Murli Manohar Srivastava and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner was not made a party to the appeal filed by Opposite Party No.5 as after allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner, she was a necessary party. The Appellate Authority in gross violation of principle of natural justice and against fair play has illegally cancelled the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Since Opposite Party No.5 had submitted a resignation supported with an affidavit, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned had accepted the resignation of Opposite Party No.5. In this regard, an F.I.R. was also lodged by Opposite Party No.5 against the petitioner on 14.08.2012 to the effect that she had prepared her forged resignation letter, however, police had submitted final report in the matter and in forensic report dated 30.09.2013 the signature of Opposite Party No.5 was found to be genuine. The photo copy of forensic report is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. 5. The photo copy of forensic report is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. 5. Encountering the argument, it is stated by learned counsel for Opposite Party No.5 that when Opposite Party No.5 was running the fair price shop, she was having shortage of space, so she had taken space in the house of one Jaggnath Singh S/O Binda Bux Singh on rent of Rs. 200/- per month. Jitendra Bahadur Singh (husband of the petitioner) is the son of Shri Jaggrnath Singh and Smt. Surya Kala Devi (petitioner) is the wife of Jitendra Bahadur Singh and in whose house Opposite Party No.5 was running shop on rent. Shri Jitendra Bahadue Singh and his son Shiv Pratap Singh had also accompanied Opposite Party No.5 several times and had helped her to deposit money for essential commodities and collect it. They had also helped her when Opposite Party No.5 was allotted the fair price shop to run the same, so on this account, it is argued that it might be possible that the petitioner and her husband might have obtained blanked signed paper of Opposite Party No.5, which could have been used to prepare the forged resignation letter and the affidavits. It is further stated that from perusal of record it is evident that on 11th January, 2012, a show cause notice was issued to her (C.A. 3 to the counter affidavit) and Opposite Party No.5 submitted reply to the same (C.A. 4 to the counter affidavit) and she had contested the said notice, so there was no occasion for her to submit her resignation before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar. It is also stated that when Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned had made an endorsement on the alleged resignation of Opposite Party No.5 to the Supply Inspect to submit a report, he should have wait for said report before accepting the resignation of Opposite Party No.5. But on the same date in hurried manner the Block Development Officer concerned was directed to convene another open meeting. It is further stated that the fair price shop in question was in fact reserved for Schedule Caste category and was alloted to Opposite Party No.5 in the said category and the petitioner being general category candidate could not be alloted the said fair price shop. It is further stated that the fair price shop in question was in fact reserved for Schedule Caste category and was alloted to Opposite Party No.5 in the said category and the petitioner being general category candidate could not be alloted the said fair price shop. It is also stated that open meeting to select another fair price shop was convened on 20.04.2012 after four days from the date when the shop in question was cancelled, which is against the provision of Rule 32 and 37 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947, so the very appointment of petitioner is against the provision of law. It is also stated that when the petitioner had made a representation to District Magistrate, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar challenging his resignation, the matter was referred to Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned to inquire into the matter, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned to make an inquiry and Opposite Party No.5 should have been given opportunity of hearing, so far as alleged resignation was concerned. Without conducting any inquiry and without submitting any report to the District Magistrate, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar, the representation of petitioner was rejected vide order dated 24th July, 2012 (C.A. 11 to the counter affidavit) by Sub-Divisional Magistrate himself. 6. Learned Standing Counsel has also stated that in the present case the Rule of Quota was not followed as the shop in question was reserved for a Schedule Caste candidate. Therefore, the selection of fair price shop was in utter violation of Government Orders. 7. From perusal of record, it is evident that Opposite Party No.5 had submitted her resignation on 16.04.2012 along with an affidavit and on the same date without obtaining any inquiry report, the resignation was accepted and in a hurried manner on 20.04.2012 a open meeting of Gram Panchayat concerned was convened, wherein, the petitioner was selected for running the fair price shop. It appears that Rule 32 and 37 of U.P. Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947 was not followed. This apart, the authority concerned i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar had also not looked into the matter, so far as the reservation policy is concerned. These facts have not been taken into account by the appellate authority while disposing the appeal. This apart, the authority concerned i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar had also not looked into the matter, so far as the reservation policy is concerned. These facts have not been taken into account by the appellate authority while disposing the appeal. However, so far as the genuineness of the resignation latter is concerned, in this writ jurisdiction, no specific finding can be recorded, which requires detailed inquiry which has not been done at any previous stage including at appellate stage and the petitioner has not been made a party before the appellate authority and no opportunity of hearing was provided to her. 8. So to my view, it would be appropriate to allow the writ petition and relegate the matter to Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned to conduct a detailed inquiry on the following points and take appropriate decision at the earliest : 1. Whether the resignation letter of Opposite Party No.5 is genuine ? 2. Whether Rule 32 and 37 of Uttar Pradesh Panchayati Raj Rules, 1947 has been complied with ? 3. Whether shop in question has been reserved for Schedule Caste Category candidates and the same has been alloted to general category candidate in violation of reservation policy in this regard ? 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2015 is set aside and matter is relegated back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, Chatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj Nagar with a direction to inquire into the matter on the points as stated above and decide the matter afresh at the earliest, say within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing to Opposite Party No.5 as well as to the petitioner. However, it is made clear that till a fresh order is passed as stated above, the order dated 16.04.2012 (C.A. No.6 to the counter affidavit) and order dated 27.04.2012 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) through which the fair price shop has been alloted to the petitioner, shall be kept in abeyance. 10. The original records, which were summoned, be sent back.