JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 29.9.2008 as well as 29.3.2012, whereby the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred thereafter has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was running a fair price shop situated in Village Panchayat Vihara, Block Mawai, Tehsil Rudauli, District Faizabad from last many years. On the basis of a frivolous complaint a preliminary enquiry was conducted by Senior Supply Inspector, Rudauli, District Faizabad, who had submitted the enquiry report dated 28.7.2008. The competent authority i.e. opposite party no.4/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudauli, Faizabad relying on the said enquiry report had suspended the fair price shop licence of petitioner vide order dated 30.7.2008. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice calling upon him to submit his explanation about the alleged irregularities committed by him in the distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 11.8.2008. Thereafter certain persons had made complaint to the District Magistrate that the Senior Supply Inspector was biased in submitting his enquiry report dated 28.7.2008, on the direction of District Magistrate in order to verify the veracity of such complaint an enquiry was conducted by Naib Tehsildar, Mawai, Faizabad, who had submitted his report on 21.9.2008. It is contended that the opposite party no.4 relying on the said report of Naib Tehsildar dated 21.9.2008 has passed the impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop licence of the petitioner, however, the copy of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 was not provided to the petitioner and he was not given any opportunity to rebut the same. 3. It is submitted that the order impugned, as such, has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Devi Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division and others; 2010 (8) ADJ 700 . 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sita Devi Vs. Commissioner, Lucknow Division and others; 2010 (8) ADJ 700 . 4. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of supplementary counter affidavit, while defending the impugned orders submits that the petitioner was provided full opportunity of defence in the enquiry proceedings and was given full opportunity to produce his evidence in defence. The order impugned has been passed considering the material evidence on record and the petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced by non-supply of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008. It is submitted that in the proceedings relating to cancellation of fair price shop licence the enquiry report is not required to be provided to the delinquent licencee. 5. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 6. The first and foremost question for consideration in this case is whether the copy of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 was provided to the petitioner during the enquiry proceedings and in case it was not made available to the petitioner whether any prejudice was caused to him or not. 7. In the writ petition petitioner has specifically taken this plea in para 19 that order impugned dated 29.9.2008 has been passed relying on the enquiry report dated 21.9.2008, however, the copy of same was not furnished to the petitioner. Specific reply to the said plea has been given in supplementary counter affidavit. The opposite parties have submitted that enquiry report was not enclosed with show cause notice and only the matter of enquiry was described in it. It was the procedure at the relevant time that no enquiry report was used to be enclosed with the show cause notice. As such, it is evidently clear that copy of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 was not furnished to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order of cancellation dated 29.9.2008. 8. A perusal of impugned order clearly indicates that opposite party no.4/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli, District Faizabad while passing the impugned cancellation order has relied on the enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 and on the basis of the same has come to conclusion that in the ration cards of certain card holders belonging to BPL and APL category the noting of distribution of essential commodities was not found. Statements of 41 card holders were noted, out of which 32 card holders had made statement against the petitioner and have stated that they were not provided the essential commodities. The enquiry officer has found petitioner guilty. The competent authority has also observed that earlier fair price shop licence of the petitioner was twice suspended and subsequently restored after confiscating security amount. The licence was suspended on the allegation that he had demanded excess money than the prescribed rate for providing essential commodities. The competent authority has also discussed the conduct of the petitioner and has noted that there are complaints that the petitioner had misbehaved with card holders in intoxicated condition and he is habitual of misbehaving with card holders and has not improved his conduct. 9. It is needless to observe that in case the competent authority had relied on the enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 while forming his opinion, it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer/competent authority to have furnished copy of enquiry report to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation in that regard. It was also necessary for the competent authority to have verified the statements of card holders who had deposed before the Naib Tehsildar and on that basis enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 was submitted. The said card holders should have been called upon to verify their statements in case the same was to be relied as evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner should have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine the said card holders. In case the competent authority had come to conclusion that the petitioner was habitual of misbehaving with the card holders in intoxicated condition, it was incumbent upon the competent authority to have verified the said facts by examining the persons with whom the petitioner had misbehaved and should have been recorded their statement and should have provided the opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner in this regard. The order impugned does not disclose that any such exercise was carried out by the competent authority while forming an opinion about the misbehavior of petitioner. 10. In the case of Sita Devi Vss. The order impugned does not disclose that any such exercise was carried out by the competent authority while forming an opinion about the misbehavior of petitioner. 10. In the case of Sita Devi Vss. Commissioner, Lucknow Division and others (supra) this Court has opined that the action of opposite parties of passing the impugned order without supplying the copy of preliminary enquiry report while proving the charges against the petitioner on the basis of said enquiry report is hit by the grave legal infirmity and the whole action of opposite party is in great disregard of the principles of natural justice. Para 26 of judgment is relevant in this regard which is reproduced hereinbelow: - "As has already been discussed above, in the present case the charges against the petitioner were absolutely vague. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered while passing the order, either by the Up-Zila Adhilari, Sandila, district Hardoi or by the appellate authority and merely saying that there were irregularities, without specifying any kind of irregularity and without holding proper enquiry, would not be a ground for cancelling the licence of the petitioner. The action of the opposite party no.2 of passing the impugned order without supplying the copy of the preliminary enquiry report while proving the charges against the petitioner on the basis of said enquiry report is hit by the grave legal infirmity and the whole action of the opposite party no.2 is in great disregard of the principles of natural justice." 11. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner the appellate authority has not properly considered this legal aspect of the matter and has proceeded to dismiss the appeal by confirming the impugned order. 12. Since the order dated 29.9.2008 has not been found to be sustainable in the eyes of law, as such, the appellate order dated 29.3.2012 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 13. The writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 29.9.2008 as well as 29.3.2013 are set aside. The petitioner shall be provided copy of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 and he may be provided an opportunity of furnishing his reply. 13. The writ petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 29.9.2008 as well as 29.3.2013 are set aside. The petitioner shall be provided copy of enquiry report dated 21.9.2008 and he may be provided an opportunity of furnishing his reply. The opposite parties shall hold a fresh enquiry from the stage of submission of reply by the petitioner and complete the enquiry proceedings in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner expeditiously and pass a final order. During the period of enquiry the licence of the petitioner shall be treated to be under suspension and it would depend upon the final outcome in the enquiry. The enquiry proceedings shall be completed in a time bound manner, say, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.