JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri O.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr.Krishna Singh, learned Standing Counsel through Video Conferencing. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.07.2019, passed by the opposite party no.3 i.e. the District Supply Officer, District-Unnao by means of which the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and the appellate order dated 08.11.2019, passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner was suspended by means of order dated 25.08.2018 and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply. After considering reply submitted by the petitioner the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner was restored vide order dated 05.10.2018 as the complaint against the petitioner was not found sustainable and there was an enmity between the family of petitioner and the husband of Gram Pradhan. Thereafter another complaint was made on 10.12.2018 and the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner was suspended by means of order dated 24.01.2019 and a charge sheet was served to the petitioner on 31.01.2019, but the copy of the complaint and the statements of alleged card holders alleged to have been recorded in the inquiry and enquiry report were not provided to the petitioner. The petitioner had preferred an application for providing him a copy of the complaint and copy of the inquiry report on 06.02.2019, but without considering the same and affording any opportunity to the petitioner the impugned order dated 4th July, 2019 was passed by means of which the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner had preferred an appeal, but without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner the appeal has been dismissed by means of order dated 08.11.2019. Therefore the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry has been conducted in gross violation of law, principles of natural justice and various Government Orders. Therefore the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to the quashed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit reply while issuing the charge sheet and the petitioner should have submitted his complete reply. Therefore the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to the quashed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to submit reply while issuing the charge sheet and the petitioner should have submitted his complete reply. He further submitted that after considering the statements of various card holders, the finding has been recorded that the petitioner was misbehaving with the card holders and was not distributing the essential commodities. The petitioner also could not produce any evidence in support of his reply, therefore the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled and the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected. There is no illegality or error in the action taken against the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels of the parties and perused the record. 7. It appears from the record that a complaint was made against the petitioner on 25.08.2018 and on the same date the Fair Price Shop Licence of the petitioner was suspended on the basis of the statements of 22 card holders. The petitioner had submitted his reply and after considering the reply, the Fair Price Shop Licence of the petitioner was restored by means of order dated 05.10.2018 and a finding was recorded that there is a family enmity between the husband of the Pradhan and the Fair Price Shop Dealer i.e. the petitioner. The Fair Price Shop Licence of the petitioner was again suspended on a complaint dated 10.12.2018 by means of order dated 24.01.2019. A charge sheet was issued on 31.01.2019. Perusal of the suspension order and the charge sheet indicates that no documents were annexed alongwith the same. The petitioner had submitted an application on 06.02.2019 for providing him a copy of the complaint and the inquiry report, but even thereafter the same were not provided and the impugned order dated 4th of July, 2019 was passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner has taken a specific plea in paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition that the copy of the complaint, inquiry report and other relevant documents have not been provided to the petitioner despite the demand made by the petitioner from opposite party parties on 06.02.2019. 8. The petitioner has taken a specific plea in paragraph 7 and 8 of the writ petition that the copy of the complaint, inquiry report and other relevant documents have not been provided to the petitioner despite the demand made by the petitioner from opposite party parties on 06.02.2019. In reply of the same in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit nothing has been said about providing the documents and only this much has been said that the petitioner has submitted his reply/explanation on 18.02.2019 and after perusal of all the relevant record as well as explanation submitted by the petitioner the same has not been found satisfactory. Even it has not been disclosed as to which records have been considered. Therefore it has not been disputed that the documents were not provided to the petitioner. 9. It is provided in the Government Order dated 15.10.2014, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure no.9 to the writ petition, that while making an inquiry the entries made in the distribution register and the ration card of the card holders are to be considered and while recording the statement of the complainant and other parties the cross examination should also be done so that there should be transparency in the inquiry proceedings and unnecessary litigation may be avoided. 10. It is also settled proposition of law that once the action is being taken having penal consequences, sufficient opportunity in accordance with law and principles of natural justice should have been afforded to the person concerned to defend him. He should have been provided copy of the complaint, enquiry report and other relevant material for submitting the proper reply and defending his case. But in the present case even after demand made by the petitioner, no documents were provided to the petitioner and he was also not afforded opportunity to participate in enquiry. 11. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Idrish versus State of U.P. and another 2018 (36) LCD 1186 has held in paragraph 17 to 21 as under:- "17. In Pooran Singh vs. State, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 , a Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 contemplates a full fledged inquiry before the licence/ agreement of a fair price shop is cancelled. In Pooran Singh vs. State, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 , a Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 contemplates a full fledged inquiry before the licence/ agreement of a fair price shop is cancelled. The Full Bench has held that as per the Government Order dated 01.07.2004 an opportunity of hearing is required before passing any order of cancellation. 18. In Writ C No. 3611 of 2014, Sanjay Kumar v. State, decided on 05.02.2016 a Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: "The procedure for holding an inquiry for cancelling the licence of the fair price shop has been provided in the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 read with U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004. The aforesaid Government Order and Distribution Order came up for consideration before the Full Bench of this Court in case of Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB). The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 held that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry pursuant to the show cause notice for cancellation and then a final decision in the matter. The aforesaid decision was followed by the learned Single Judge in his judgement and order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh's case his Lordship observed that a fullfledged inquiry is necessary before cancelling the agreement and it would require service of the charges, along with material in support of each charge, the information about the place and date of inquiry, the statements of persons on whose complaint inquiry was started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry, the statements of the persons appearing before the Inquiry Officer. In other words it means that an independent inquiry before passing an order of cancellation of licence to run a fair price shop is mandatory and a show cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to conform to the principles of natural justice. It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. It is obligatory upon the authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the fair price shop dealer, after serving of the charge sheet with regard to the date and place where the hearing will took place and to give an opportunity of hearing. This is in addition to the show cause notice issued for the purposes of suspension of the licence of the fair price shop." 19. In Misc. Single Case No. 5520 of 2008, Laloo Singh vs. State, decided on 05.06.2015 a Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: "After peeping into the contentions of both the parties and the series of case laws, referred to above, I am of the considered opinion that the cancellation of a agreement/licence of a party is a serious business and cannot be taken lightly. In order to justify the action taken to cancel such an agreement/licence, the authority concerned has to act fairly and in complete adherence to the rules/guidelines framed for the said purposes including the principles of natural justice. The non-supply of a document utilized against the aggrieved person before the cancellation of his allotment of fair price shop licence/agreement offends the well-established principle that no person should be condemned unheard." 20. In Abu Bakar v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2010 (80) ALR 769, a Single Judge of this court has held as follows: "In view of the settled legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the cancellation of petitioner's fair price shop agreement by respondent No. 3 in contravention of principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Since the appellate authority failed to rectify the error committed by the licensing authority, respondent no. 3 the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be set aside alongwith the order of the licensing authority." 21. In view of the settled legal position mentioned above before passing the impugned order cancelling the licence/ agreement of fair price shop of the petitioner, the opposite parties were obliged to serve upon the petitioner a show cause notice/charge sheet requiring the petitioner to explain the charges leveled against him and thereafter the respondents were obliged to hold an inquiry against the petitioner before cancelling the fair price shop licence/ agreement of the petitioner. In the present case the respondents have failed to establish that any such attempt was made on their part. In the present case the respondents have failed to establish that any such attempt was made on their part. In the circumstances, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside." 12. In view of above, this court is of the considered view that the inquiry has been conducted against the petitioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice, law and Government Orders. Therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to the quashed. 13. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. 14. The impugned orders dated 08.11.2019, passed by the opposite party no.2 i.e. the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow and dated 04.07.2019, passed by the opposite party no.3 i.e. District Supply Officer, District-Unnao, contained in annexure no.1 and 2 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the opposite party no.3 i.e. the District Supply Officer, District-Unnao to make a fresh inquiry from the stage of providing the charge sheet in accordance with law and the observations made here-in-above in this order. Inquiry so conducted shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of production of a computerized copy of this order alongwith an affidavit on account of pandemic of Covid-19, which may be verified by the concerned authority from the official website of this Court. No order as to costs.