Vikash Jain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 224 dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure-4) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pupri (Sitamarhi) by which licence of the petitioner’s Fair Price shop bearing no. 20 of 2020 has been cancelled and monthly allotment has been stopped; and further to restore the petitioner’s licence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission to assail the impugned order on the ground that a copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the petitioner and he was never confronted with the same with an opportunity of being heard or adducing evidence in that regard. A specific stand has been taken in para 3 of the supplementary affidavit that the impugned order of cancellation of licence has been passed without providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, though the same had been relied upon in the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. 5. In the above view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that non-supply of the enquiry report to the petitioner has resulted in violation of natural justice and thus the decision making process stands vitiated. The impugned order contained in memo no. 224 dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure-4) is hereby quashed and the matter remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pupri (Sitamarhi) for taking decision afresh in the matter after supplying a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner and granting an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law. Licence of the petitioner shall be restored without delay until fresh orders are passed by the respondent no. 4. 6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment. 7. The writ petition stands allowed as above. 8. 4. 6. It is made clear that in case the stand of the petitioner denying receipt of the enquiry report prior to order of cancellation being passed is found to be incorrect, the respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for recall of this judgment. 7. The writ petition stands allowed as above. 8. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para 1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.