JUDGMENT : Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 18.9.2015 as well as 30.11.2015, whereby the fair price shop license of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred thereafter has been dismissed. 3. As per given facts as borne out from the record the petitioner was granted fair price shop license for Village Panchayat Jharha, Block Deenshahgaura, Tehsil Dalmau, District Raebareli. On 4.2.2014 and 24.2.2014 certain complaints were made against the petitioner regarding improper distribution of essential commodities to the card holders at a higher price than the rates fixed. On the said complaints preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector and on the basis of preliminary enquiry report dated 13.3.2014 the opposite party no.3/Up Ziladhikari, Dalmau, District Raebareli vide order dated 13.3.2014 had suspended the license of fair price shop of petitioner. It was thereafter that the petitioner had submitted his detailed reply on 15.4.2014. The opposite party no.3 vide order dated 30.9.2014 had passed the order cancelling the agreement of fair price shop license of petitioner. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had challenged the said order by filing an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Lucknow. The said appeal was allowed vide order dated 9.7.2015 and the order dated 30.9.2014 was quashed. The matter was remanded back to the competent authority to decide it afresh giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after providing relevant documents such as enquiry report, statements of card holders and after providing opportunity of hearing. It is thereafter that the petitioner was provided the copy of preliminary enquiry report, statements of card holders and other documents vide letter dated 21.8.2015. The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation which he filed on 31.8.2015. The competent authority thereafter called the report from the Supply Inspector on the information given by the petitioner and Supply Inspector had submitted his report on 18.9.2015. Thereafter the competent authority had again cancelled the fair price shop license of petitioner vide order dated 18.9.2015. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015. 4. Thereafter the competent authority had again cancelled the fair price shop license of petitioner vide order dated 18.9.2015. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.11.2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of specific directions of appellate authority vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2015 to provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order on merit in accordance with law, the opposite party no.3 without fixing any date for hearing and without considering the evidence on record has passed the impugned order merely on the basis of report dated 18.9.2015 of the Supply Inspector, that too, without providing copy of said report dated 18.9.2015 to the petitioner. The contention is that the petitioner was not provided adequate opportunity of defense before passing of the impugned order dated 18.9.2015. No date, time or place was fixed by the enquiry officer to adduce the evidence on record and prove the charges. The impugned order has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and in gross violation of procedure prescribed as per the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. 5. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit has tried to defend the impugned order by submitting that the petitioner had not produced any document to show that the charges levelled against him are not correct. The petitioner had not cooperated in the enquiry as he had not produced the relevant records such as stock register, distribution register etc. The competent authority had no option but to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of enquiry report filed by the Supply Inspector. It is submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner were serious in nature as such the competent authority was right in cancelleing the agreement of fair price shop of petitioner. The appellate court has considered the pleas taken in the appeal by the petitioner and has dismissed the appeal on merit. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the relevant records pertaining to enquiry. The appellate court has considered the pleas taken in the appeal by the petitioner and has dismissed the appeal on merit. 6. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the relevant records pertaining to enquiry. It is to be noted that this Court time and again has emphasized the manner and procedure which is required to be adopted by the authority while conducting the enquiry in the matter relating to cancellation of fair price shop license, however, this Court is pained to note that in most of the cases proper procedure for holding the enquiry is not adopted and the relevant government orders issued by the State Government are not adhered to while conducting the enquiry due to which in many cases impugned cancellation orders are quashed on technical grounds and matters are remanded back to the authority concerned which result in prolonging litigation. 8. The instant is one of such cases where in spite of the fact that the appellate court after recording its finding that in the enquiry the competent authority has not adopted due procedure and has not provided relevant documents to the licensee had passed the cancellation order as such a fresh enquiry was required to be held after providing full opportunity to the licensee, however, the competent authority without adhering to the due procedure has again proceeded to pass the cancellation order without fixing any date to adduce the evidence on record and without making any effort to prove the charges. 9. In the given case the license of petitioner was initially cancelled vide order dated 30.9.2014. The said order was passed on the basis of preliminary enquiry report submitted by the supply inspector. The appellate authority vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2015 had come to conclusion that the enquiry held before passing of the cancellation order dated 30.09.2014 was not proper and had remanded the matter back to the competent authority to pass a fresh order on merits after providing copy of enquiry report, statements of card holders and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After the matter was remanded to the competent authority the copy of enquiry report, statements of card holders etc. were provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.8.2015. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within one week. After the matter was remanded to the competent authority the copy of enquiry report, statements of card holders etc. were provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.8.2015. The petitioner was asked to submit his reply within one week. The petitioner had submitted his reply on 31.8.2015. On the said submission of reply the competent authority had directed the concerning Supply Inspector to submit his report. The said Supply Inspector had submitted his report on 18.9.2015 and on the very same day the impugned order of cancellation dated 18.9.2015 was passed. It is to be noted that after submission of reply by the petitioner and receiving of the report of Supply Inspector no date was fixed by the enquiry officer to adduce the evidence and examining the documents. Moreover, no date was fixed for personal hearing of the petitioner. 10. It is also to be noted that the report of Supply Inspector dated 18.9.2015 was not provided to the petitioner, as such, it is evidently clear that full opportunity of defense was not provided to the petitioner and the competent authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 18.9.2015 without providing full opportunity to the petitioner which is contrary to the directions issued by the appellate authority vide its judgment and order dated 9.7.2015. It was also contrary to the procedure prescribed by the various government orders viz. 29.7.2004. As such, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 18.9.2015 was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and, as such, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. The appellate authority has failed to appreciate this factual and legal position and has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2015. Order dated 30.11.2015 is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. Orders dated 18.9.2015 and 30.11.2015 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to opposite party no.3 to hold the enquiry from the stage of submission of reply dated 31.8.2015 by fixing a date to adduce the evidence on record and for personal hearing. The petitioner shall be given opportunity of personal hearing and produce the defense evidence. Orders dated 18.9.2015 and 30.11.2015 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to opposite party no.3 to hold the enquiry from the stage of submission of reply dated 31.8.2015 by fixing a date to adduce the evidence on record and for personal hearing. The petitioner shall be given opportunity of personal hearing and produce the defense evidence. The enquiry report shall be submitted and final order shall be passed within a period of one and half month from the date a certified cop of this order is produced before opposite party no.3. 13. During the enquiry and till the final orders are passed the license of petitioner shall be treated to be under suspension.