ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the orders dated 18.9.2013 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur and 07.6.2017 passed by the Collector, District Sheopur by which the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur had cancelled the allotment of the fair price shop and the Collector has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that on 8.9.2013 on the basis of an information, a mini truck bearing Registration No. MP07 GA 2464 was stopped near Government Hospital, Vijaypur and it was searched and it was found that the said truck was loaded with 2.5 kg of wheat, 9 quintol of rice, 1 quintol of salt, 50 kg of sugar, 10 kg of loose sugar and 10 kg of loose rice. On querry made from the driver Rajaram, he informed that he was transporting the above-mentioned grocery from the fair price shop run by the petitioner to the house of the salesman Munshi Khan which is situated in village Gohta. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 10.9.2013 was issued to the President of the society as to why the allotment of the fair price shop may not be cancelled and why the security amount be not forfeited. The petitioner was directed to file the reply by 12:00 p.m. on 16.9.2013. It appears that on 17.9.2013, the President of the petitioner society as well as salesman Munshi Khan filed their reply. In the reply filed by the President of the petitioner society, it was specifically mentioned that neither the grocery nor the truck belongs to the society and even the truck driver is also not an employee of the society, therefore, the society cannot be made responsible for the misappropriation of the grocery meant for public distribution. It appears that on the very next day, the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur passed the final order thereby cancelling the allotment of the shop. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur dated 18.9.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 7.6 2017. 4. It appears that on the very next day, the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur passed the final order thereby cancelling the allotment of the shop. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur dated 18.9.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal which too has suffered dismissal by order dated 7.6 2017. 4. Challenging the orders passed by the authorities, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given by the authorities to the petitioner which is the requirement of law as per clause 11 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009. It was further submitted that an ex-parte enquiry was conducted by the respondents. 5. The State, by filing the reply, has denied the allegations made in the writ petition. It is mentioned that an FIR has been lodged against the President as well as salesman Munshi Khan and they are facing criminal trial in Crime No. 179/2013 and the charges have also been framed. A show cause notice dated 10.9.2013 was issued to the officer-bearers of the society who appeared through their counsel and submitted their reply on 17.9.2013 and on the next date, the final order was passed. Thus, it is clear that where the authorities were not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, then no further enquiry was required and, accordingly, the order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur is not bad in law and has been passed in accordance with law. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. Clause 11 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 reads as under: “11. Punishment and Penalty: (1) In case of contravening any provision of central order or this order by any co-operative institution running the fair price shop, the authority letter shall be suspended or revoked and the security deposit shall be forfeited and in such a case, the forfeited amount shall be recoverable from the erring employee of the concerned society. Punishment and Penalty: (1) In case of contravening any provision of central order or this order by any co-operative institution running the fair price shop, the authority letter shall be suspended or revoked and the security deposit shall be forfeited and in such a case, the forfeited amount shall be recoverable from the erring employee of the concerned society. (2) The shop allotment officer cannot revoke the licence as per sub-clause (1) without issuing the show cause notice to the concerned fair price shop and till such time an opportunity has been given to the fair price shop holder to put forth its arguments in writing and after reasonable opportunity has been given, the shop allotment officer in a reasoned order shall suspend the licence and the shop allotment officer shall issue a show cause notice within ten days of suspending the fair price shop following the principles of natural justice giving a reasonable opportunity to the fair price shop holder and ensure that the final order be passed within three months. (3) If it is found that the fair price shop has distributed food grains to any ineligible person or that the food grains have been diverted, then the value of the same shall be recovered from the responsible salesman/employee/person and such amount shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. (4) If any fair price shop/society through its manager, salesman or any other person has contravened the terms and conditions of this order or the central order or any direction issued by the State Government/ Commissioner/Collector/Shop Allotment Officer, the competent authority shall proceed as per sub-clause (1) and forfeit security deposit wholly or partially: Provided that the forfeiture can be invoked only after giving a reasonable opportunity to the institution for being heard and thereafter pass a reasoned order. (5) In the event of a fair price shop violating the conditions of the central order or this order, the Collector can initiate action under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. (6) Before removal of a salesman, the primary agricultural co-operative society has to issue a removal order in writing and in case of serious irregularity, prosecution can be initiated. (6) Before removal of a salesman, the primary agricultural co-operative society has to issue a removal order in writing and in case of serious irregularity, prosecution can be initiated. (7) In cases of serious irregularity, prosecution proceedings shall be initiated and in such cases, the prosecution shall not be restricted to the society or to the salesman but the society may also prosecute the manager and in case the chairman is also involved in irregularities, the prosecution proceedings may also be initiated against him. (8) In the event of a lead society contravening any provision of this order, action may be initiated against the concerned along with suspension of the person concerned and further, a portion or the entire security deposit may be forfeited. (9) In the event of lead societies being unable to lift the food grains and transport the same or in the event of delay, prosecution proceedings may be initiated against the society. (10) In the event of a responsible officer of the authorized nominee of the State Government, not being able to store the essential commodities of the public distribution system in time, or falling to irregularity, prosecution proceedings may be initiated against him. (11) The authorized nominee of the State Government shall issue show notice in writing and give an opportunity to the officer concerned, before institution of prosecution under sub-clauses (8), (9) and (10).” 8. Thus, it is clear that after receiving the reply to the show cause notice, the authorities were under obligation to give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the noticee. 9. In the present case, undisputedly the show cause notice was issued on 10.9.2013. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had not only denied the ownership of the grocery as well as the truck but had also demanded the entire documents on the basis of which the proceedings have been initiated. It appears that without ad-hearing to the facts of the case and without supplying the documents to the petitioner, the SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur passed the final order on the very next date i.e. 18.9.2013. It appears that even an opportunity for making final arguments was also not extended to the petitioner. Even the documents on which reliance was placed by the authorities have not been supplied to the petitioner. It appears that even an opportunity for making final arguments was also not extended to the petitioner. Even the documents on which reliance was placed by the authorities have not been supplied to the petitioner. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to even file any application seeking cross-examination of the witnesses on which the reliance was placed by the SDO. Thus, it is clear that the authorities have miserably failed in extending reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before passing the final order of revocation of the license to run the fair price shop. 10. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that on the physical verification of the shop, certain short comings were found in the stock exgister and actual stock which have been highlighted in the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. 11. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the State. 12. As per the show cause notice, 2.5 kg of wheat, 9 quintals of rice, 1 quintal of salt, 50 kg of sugar, 10 kg of loose sugar and 10 kg of loose rice were found loaded in the truck whereas on physical verification, 5.76 quintals of wheat was found in excess. Similarly, 30 litres of kerosene was found in excess. Only 21.86 kg of sugar was found short of the stock register whereas according to the show cause notice, total 60 kg of sugar was found loaded on the truck. Thus, it is clear that the sugar which was found loaded on the truck was much more than the stock which was found to be short in the fair price shop. Thus, it is clear that it cannot be said with certainty that the grocery loaded on the truck was in fact stolen or taken away or was being misapporpriated from the fair price shop of the petitioner. This Court has already come to a conclusion that the reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, without considering other submissions with regard to the non-compliance of clause 10 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009, the order dated 18.9.2013 passed by the SDO (Revenue) Vijaypur, District Sheopur and order dated 7.6.2017 passed by the Collector, Sheopur are hereby set aside. 13. 13. The matter is remanded back to the Court of SDO (Revenue), Vijaypur, District Sheopur to decide the same afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and after supplying all the necessary documents to the petitioner. 14. The petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.