JUDGMENT : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short ‘the Revisional Authority’), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur (for short ‘the Appellate Authority’), was dismissed. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 31.07.2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/ appellant against the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, whereby the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled. 2. The brief facts relevant for consideration by this Court are that the petitioner was having licence of fair price shop for half part of Gram Panchayat Amargah, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur. The Government of Rajasthan issued orders dated 30.06.2016, 19.07.2016 and 05.08.2016 in relation to distribution of food articles by way of PoS machine. The District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, vide order dated 27.06.2016 cancelled the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop in view of allegations leveled against him. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.06.2016 by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed after considering the material available on the record and the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was revived. Again certain persons leveled allegations against the petitioner vide complaint dated 13.09.2017 that the petitioner is not distributing the food items in time. Proceedings were started against the petitioner and vide order dated 22.09.2017, the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was placed under suspension. 3. In view of the allegations made against the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by the Enforcement Inspector, who submitted his report. On the basis of the report, a show-cause notice dated 6.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner to submit his explanation on or before 19.12.2017 at 11:00 AM. In response to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 19.12.2017. The District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, vide its order dated 22.12.2017 cancelled the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop. Against the order of cancellation of licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Revisional Authority, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 06.02.2019. Against the order of cancellation of licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the revision petition before the Revisional Authority, which was also dismissed vide its order dated 06.02.2019. Against the order passed in the revision petition, the petitioner also moved a review petition before the Court of the Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2019 by observing that there is no provision under the law to entertain the review petition. 4. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of cancellation of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop issued by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Sub Divisional Officer passed the aforesaid order of cancellation of licence without giving the petitioner fair and property opportunity. He further submitted that no documents including the inquiry report which has been used against the petitioner were ever served upon him. He also submitted that the false allegations have been leveled against the petitioner by some persons because of enmity and the complainants being annoyed by revival of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop under the order of the District Supply Officer, District Collector, Sawai Madhopur, who allowed the appeal of the petitioner against the cancellation of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop. He submitted that though the allegations against the petitioner are false and the variance in the stock and the distribution is because of the reason that the petitioner is not friendly with the function of the POS machine and the allegations against the petitioner are of embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal of wheat. He further submitted that the statements of witnesses used against the petitioner were not served to him and also no documents were made available to the petitioner including the inquiry report with the show cause notice, so that he can defend his case effectively. He also submitted that the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has observed that the embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal wheat is proved from the documents of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur and also in view of the fact that the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was also cancelled earlier. He also submitted that the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has observed that the embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal wheat is proved from the documents of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur and also in view of the fact that the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was also cancelled earlier. He submitted that cancellation of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop cannot be a ground to hold the subsequent allegations proved against the petitioner. The Revisional Authority did not give its independent finding and has endorsed the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the order dated 02.04.2018 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15584/2016, Ramkhiladi Meena vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. 5. Mr. Bharat Singh Gurjar, Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents- State submitted that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner and before cancellation of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop, a showcause notice was served upon him and on the basis of the inquiry report by the Enforcement Inspector, the allegations against the petitioner were found proved. He further submitted that since there are concurrent findings and the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled after due process of law, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. 6. Having heard both the counsels at length, the judgment was reserved. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the entire record. 8. This Court finds that on the basis of the enquiry report dated 30.08.2017, the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.09.2017 and a show-cause notice dated 06.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner with certain allegations for which an explanation was sought from the petitioner which was to be submitted on 19.12.2017. Along-with the show cause notice, no any document including the complaint, the statements of the villagers or the inquiry report dated 30.08.2017 was given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice on 19.12.2017 and soon after three days, vide order dated 22.12.2017 the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, cancelled the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop. 9. However, the petitioner submitted explanation to the show-cause notice on 19.12.2017 and soon after three days, vide order dated 22.12.2017 the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, cancelled the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop. 9. In the beginning of the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, the details of explanation submitted by the petitioner have been mentioned but in the concluding para it has been stated that the petitioner has not submitted any explanation and cogent evidence to prove himself as innocent and the allegations of embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal wheat were said to have been found proved. The observations of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur that no explanation was submitted by the petitioner, is contrary to the facts on record. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the order of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, nowhere discloses that the documents used against the petitioner including the complaint and the statements of the villagers and also the inquiry report of the Enforcement Inspector were ever supplied to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of licence. 10. It is a well settled law that before passing any adverse order against a person after an inquiry, the respondents are required to supply copies of the inquiry report and the other material used against him /her in view of the principles of natural justice and fair and proper opportunity. 11. The Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner/ appellant relied upon the inquiry reports dated 30.08.2017 and 17.11.2017 which say that the petitioner is misbehaving with the consumers and making distribution of food articles with a gap of 2-3 months. The Appellate Authority further observed that as against the allegations against the petitioner, he has not submitted any cogent documentary evidence so as to prove himself as innocent. He further observed that the allegations of embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal wheat are found proved from the documents of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur and also stated that the allegations are proved as the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was also cancelled earlier. 12. He further observed that the allegations of embezzlement of 13 liter kerosene and 2.40 quintal wheat are found proved from the documents of the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur and also stated that the allegations are proved as the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop was also cancelled earlier. 12. The Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal did not take into consideration that ‘Whether the authority cancelling the licence of petitioner’s fair price shop before cancellation of licence has followed the due process of law including the principles of natural justice and fair and proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner?’. The observations of the Appellate Authority also in considering the allegations proved against the petitioner, are contrary to the law for the reason that it was the duty of the respondents to prove the allegations against the petitioner based on the substantial evidence and not on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove himself as innocent, and therefore, the allegations are found to be proved. 13. The Revisional Authority while deciding the revision petition vide its order dated 06.02.2019 did not give its independent finding and has endorsed the findings given by the Appellate Authority. The Revisional Authority was to examine ‘Whether the proceedings drawn against the petitioner for cancellation of licence are in accordance with law, following the principles of natural justice and after allowing fair and proper opportunity of hearing?’. The Revisional Authority did not give any finding in regard to the violation of principles of natural justice and fair and proper opportunity of hearing. 14. From the discussion made above, it is very much clear that the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, while passing the order of cancellation of licence of petitioner’s fair price shop did not follow the principles of natural justice by supplying the material used against the petitioner including the complaint, the statements of the witnesses and the inquiry report used against him. The impugned order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur finds mention that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 06.12.2017 and the petitioner has not submitted any explanation, which is contrary to the record and it shows that the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur did not apply the mind while passing the impugned order. 15. 15. The Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal has solely relied upon the inquiry reports dated 30.08.2017 and 17.11.2017, though no inquiry report was ever served to the petitioner before the cancellation of licence. It is also taken into consideration that the Appellate Authority has relied upon the inquiry report dated 17.11.2017 also which did not even find mention in the order of cancellation of licence. 16. The arguments of the State Counsel that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner, does not persuade this Court for the reason that the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, did not comply with the principles of natural justice, the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal relied upon the inquiry report dated 17.11.2017 which was never disclosed to the petitioner and dismissed the appeal merely because the petitioner could not submit any evidence to prove himself as innocent. The Revisional Authority while dismissing the revision petition has not given its independent finding in regard to the allegations leveled against the petitioner. 17. Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon the order dated 02.04.2018 passed in the case of Ramkhiladi Meena (supra) wherein it has been observed that a person would be allowed fair and proper opportunity by making available the documents relating to the complaint and the decision thereon shall be taken after providing the copy of the inquiry report. 18. In view of the settled law of principles of natural justice, this Court is also of the view that before passing any adverse order against a person in such like cases, the person should be allowed proper opportunity to defend after making available the documents including the complaint, statements of the witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the inquiry report etc. In failure of supplying these documents before passing adverse orders tantamount to failure of principles of natural justice. 19. Having noted above, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders cannot be allowed to be sustained and thus, the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the Court of Addl. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Sawai Madhopur; the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur and the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, are quashed and set aside. Food Commissioner, Food, Civil Supply Department, Sawai Madhopur; the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the Court of District Collector, Sawai Madhopur and the order dated 22.12.2017 issued by the District Supply Officer, Sawai Madhopur, are quashed and set aside. The licence of the petitioner’s fair price shop for Gram Panchayat Amargarh, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur is restored and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the fair price shop and restore the supply of food-grains and articles to the petitioner for distribution. 20. The writ petition stands allowed. 21. Since the writ petition has been allowed, the stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.