JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 10.8.2007 as well as 31.10.2007 whereby the fair price shop agreement of petitioner for village Ludiyapur Hamlet of Mann Nagla, Block Bharkhani, Tehsil and Post Swaijpur, District Hardoi has been cancelled and appeal preferred under Clause 10 (1) U.P. Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 has been dismissed. 3. As per the facts of the case as borne out from the record the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop license for village Ludiyapur Hamlet of Mann Nagla, Block Bharkhani, Tehsil and Post Swaijpur, District Hardoi on 5.1.2004. The said license was suspended vide order dated 11.7.2007. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice calling upon him to submit his explanation on certain irregularities found during the surprise inspection by the Regional Supply Inspector on 10.7.2007. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 17.7.2007. The fair price shop agreement of petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 10.8.2007. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred appeal under Clause 10 (1) U.P. Schedule Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 before the Divisional Commissioner. The said appeal was decided vide order dated 18.8.2007. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition challenging the cancellation order as well as appellate order. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner as the competent authority merely on the basis of reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner has proceeded to pass the final order without fixing any date, time or place for holding the enquiry. Even the charge-sheet was not served to the petitioner. It is contended that the competent authority has passed the impugned order relying on the surprise inspection which was made in absence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the said inspection report/preliminary enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner. It is also contended that the allegations made in the show-cause notice were no even proved before passing of the impugned cancellation order. It is also submitted that the said inspection report/preliminary enquiry report was not provided to the petitioner. It is also contended that the allegations made in the show-cause notice were no even proved before passing of the impugned cancellation order. The competent authority had not made any effort to get those allegations/charges proved against the petitioner and has drawn the conclusions in this regard merely on the basis of presumptions. 5. The appellate authority has failed to properly consider the contentions raised in the appeal and dismissed the appeal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the following judgments: “1. Mohammad Eherar v. Additional Commissioner Judicial, Faizabad Division and others; [ 2017 (35) LCD 459 ]. 2. M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhoktya Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P. and others; [2001 (19) LCD 513]. 3. Munna Singh v. State of U.P. and others; [2009 (27) LCD 1432].” 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, tried to defend the impugned orders by submitting that in the preliminary enquiry held against the petitioner it was found that the fair price shop was closed. The petitioner-licensee had got the ration card of the card holders deposited with him. He was not supplying the essential commodities to the BPL card holders as per the standard and rate fixed and the distribution of kerosene oil was made once in two or three months and at higher rates than the rate fixed. The charges levelled against the petitioner were serious and, therefore, the competent authority had rightly cancelled the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the appellate authority after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner had passed the detailed order on merit dismissing the appeal, as such, no interference is required by this Court. 7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has produced the relevant records pertaining to the enquiry. 8. It is submitted that from the record it appears that no date or time was fixed for holding oral enquiry. The competent authority had proceeded to pass the final order considering the relevant records including the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and gone through the records. 10. 8. It is submitted that from the record it appears that no date or time was fixed for holding oral enquiry. The competent authority had proceeded to pass the final order considering the relevant records including the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the parties’ counsel and gone through the records. 10. The short question involved in this writ petition which requires consideration is whether the competent authority was right in proceeding with the matter on the basis of explanation/reply submitted to the show-cause notice by the petitioner and whether the competent authority was required to hold the detailed enquiry and provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and whether the documents which were relied by the competent authority in coming to conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner are true were required to be provided to the petitioner before passing the final order. 11. It is to be noted that the State Government vide Government Order dated 29.7.2004 has laid down the procedure which is required to be followed in the matters relating to suspension/cancellation of fair price shop license. As per the said procedure, in case any complaint is made or on inspection it is found that prima facie some irregularity or illegality has been committed by the licensee; then, the preliminary enquiry shall be held and thereafter a show-cause notice shall be issued to the licensee calling upon him to submit his explanation. The competent authority may suspend the license of the fair price shop licensee and thereafter hold detailed enquiry. In the detailed enquiry, opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the licensee and thereafter the competent authority shall pass the detailed order regarding the cancellation of the fair price shop license or otherwise. 12. In the present case, from the record placed before the Court, it appears that after submission of reply/explanation to the show-cause notice not detailed enquiry was held by the competent authority as neither charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner nor any date, time or place was fixed for holding oral enquiry. It also appears that the competent authority has considered the surprise inspection report/preliminary enquiry report while passing the impugned order dated 11.7.2007. It also appears that the competent authority has considered the surprise inspection report/preliminary enquiry report while passing the impugned order dated 11.7.2007. Moreover, the perusal of the impugned cancellation order clearly indicates that the competent authority has come to conclusion that the allegations made against the petitioner are found proved because he has not submitted any document such as medical certificate to indicate that the shop was closed at the time of inspection on 10.7.2007 due to illness of his wife. He has also not produced the relevant records pertaining to the distribution register, etc. to show that proper distribution of essential commodities was made by him. The conclusions drawn by the competent authority are based on presumptions. The competent authority had not fixed any date for the production of such documents and he had not called upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents to show that he had been distributing the essential commodities regularly and properly at the rate fixed to the ration card holders. The competent authority did not make any effort to prove the charges on the basis of evidence. In fact, the order impugned clearly indicates that the presumptions were drawn against the petitioner due to non-production of documents for which no direction was issued by the competent authority nor any date was fixed. 13. It is needless to observe that time and against it has been held by this Court that in such matters relating to cancellation of fair price shop license full opportunity shall be provided to the licensee and he shall be given an opportunity of hearing. 14. 13. It is needless to observe that time and against it has been held by this Court that in such matters relating to cancellation of fair price shop license full opportunity shall be provided to the licensee and he shall be given an opportunity of hearing. 14. It has been held by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB), that in case, after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority decides to hold an inquiry for cancellation of the agreement then that requires full fledged inquiry, which, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014) and Smt. Santara Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(2) ADJ 70 , means the service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the card holders/complainants, copy of the complaints and other supporting materials which are to be relied in support of the charges levelled against the fair price shop are done. 15. In the case of Mohammad Eherar (supra), this Court has held that documents such as statement of card holders which was taken behind the back of the fair price shop licensee cannot be presumed to be correct without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the licensee. It has also been held that the charges cannot be presumed as proved. 16. In the case of M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti (supra), the Division Bench had held that the order of cancellation of license of the dealer which has been passed without supplying copy of enquiry report and without affording opportunity of hearing is violative of principles of natural justice. 17. In the case of Munna Singh (supra), it has been held by this Court that the order of cancellation of license passed without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the licensee is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. It is also to be noted that the appellate authority has proceeded to decide the appeal without properly considering the legal position as discussed above. The appellate order as such is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 10.8.2007 and 31.10.2007 are hereby set-aside. 18. It is also to be noted that the appellate authority has proceeded to decide the appeal without properly considering the legal position as discussed above. The appellate order as such is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 19. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 10.8.2007 and 31.10.2007 are hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the competent authority i.e., opposite party No. 2, Sub Divisional Officer, Swaijpur, District Hardoi to proceed and complete the enquiry from the stage of submission of reply of the petitioner to the show-cause notice. In case the competent authority proceeds to hold the enquiry, the same shall be held in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. The decision to restore the fair price shop license would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry. 20. In the meantime, in case any alternative arrangement has been made with regard to distribution of essential commodities to the card holders that may continue.