JUDGMENT : Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel who has appeared on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and perused the record. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 1.9.2012 as well as 24.3.2014 whereby the fair price shop license of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred thereafter has been dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop license for village panchayat Rajaumari, Lambhua, district Sultanpur. False and frivolous complaints were made by the certain card holders. On the basis of said complaints, an ex-parte enquiry was held and on that basis vide order dated 23.3.2012 the fair price shop license of petitioner was suspended and he was issued show cause notice to submit his reply within ten days. It is submitted that the petitioner had fallen ill, as such, could not submit his reply and vide letter dated 10.4.2012 had sought time to submit reply to the show cause notice, however, an ex-parte enquiry was held against the petitioner and thereafter the impugned order of cancellation of fair price shop license dated 1.9.2012 was passed. The appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the appellate authority without properly considering the contentions raised in the appeal. 4. Submission is that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner in the enquiry. The impugned cancellation order has been passed on the basis of ex-parte enquiry, as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. It is further submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of fair price shop license. 6. It is also submitted that some of the card holders who had given statement against the petitioner have filed their affidavits in the writ petition in support of the petitioner. In case an opportunity was provided to petitioner, he would have defended himself. 7. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit has defended the impugned orders. It is submitted by him that the petitioner had intentionally not cooperated in the enquiry. He was given opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice, however, no such reply was filed by him. 7. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, on the basis of counter affidavit has defended the impugned orders. It is submitted by him that the petitioner had intentionally not cooperated in the enquiry. He was given opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice, however, no such reply was filed by him. The show cause notice was issued on 23.3.2012 and petitioner was required to file his reply by 11.4.2012, however, the petitioner had chosen not to file any reply. It was in the compelling circumstances that the enquiry was proceeded against the petitioner on the basis of evidence on record. The competent authority had come to conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the allegations levelled against him and has passed a detailed and speaking order cancellation the fair price shop license of petitioner. 8. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on merit. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders, as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 10. As per own case of the petitioner, he had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice dated 23.3.2012. 11. From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that a spot inspection was made at the fair price shop in question by the Regional Supply Officer on 21.3.2012. At the time of inspection, the shop of the petitioner was found closed. The petitioner had not informed the authorities concerned in advance about the closure of the shop. In case the petitioner was not well and was not in a position to open the shop, he should have informed the authorities about the same and after due intimation could have closed the shop. 12. It is also to be noted that the petitioner did not file any reply to the show cause notice. He chose to write a letter dated 10.4.2012 requesting the opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lambhua to grant him sometime for filing of reply as he is not well. By the said letter, the petitioner had informed that as soon as he is well, he will file his reply to the show cause notice, however, he did not file any reply to the show cause notice. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lambhua to grant him sometime for filing of reply as he is not well. By the said letter, the petitioner had informed that as soon as he is well, he will file his reply to the show cause notice, however, he did not file any reply to the show cause notice. It was only vide order dated 1.9.2012 i.e., approximately after 5 months that the fair price shop license of petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order. 13. It is also evident from the perusal of impugned cancellation order that the competent authority has discussed in detail the allegations made against the petitioner and the evidence which has been relied by him to come to conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found proved. The competent authority has recorded his finding on each and every charge and has taken into consideration the evidence relied in support of each charge. As such, I am of the considered opinion that in case the petitioner had not cooperated in the enquiry and had not submitted his reply to the show cause notice, he cannot plead that he was not provided sufficient opportunity of defense in the enquiry. The petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself, however, he had chosen not to avail that opportunity as he had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice, as such, I am of the considered view that the competent authority was fully empowered to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of evidence on record and pass the impugned order of cancellation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the said order. 14. The appellate authority has decided the appeal discussing in detail and has passed a speaking order after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal. The appellate order also does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality in this regard. 15. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of license is concerned, suffice is to note that the complaints were made against the petitioner for charging excess amount than the rate fixed for providing essential commodities and several card holders had given their statement in the enquiry levelling serious allegations against the petitioner. The nature of allegations are serious and on the said allegations cancellation of fair price shop license can be made. 16. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that some of card holders have filed their affidavit in support of the petitioner is concerned, it will not make any difference as the petitioner had not cooperated in the enquiry and in the said enquiry the charges levelled against the petitioner on the basis of evidence on record have been found proved, as such, the contention has no force. 17. In view of above, I do no find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. 18. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.