ORDER : 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “(a) That the respondents passed impugned order as dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-4) and impugned order dated 19.04.2022 (Annexure-5) and impugned order dated 20.09.2023 (Annexure-6) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) The respondents may be directed to petitioner license be restored and hand over the fair price shop immediately. (c) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner may kindly be granted to the petitioner. (d) The writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein was running a fair price shop since 2006 and on 05.08.2016, the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh issued a show cause notice (Annex.-1) stating therein that certain discrepancies have been found in the fair price shop run by the petitioner as per the report dated 01.08.2016 submitted by the Enforcement Officer, whereby petitioner was directed to submit reply or evidence by 10:00 AM on 03.10.2016 and on the same day, licence of the petitioner for fair price shop was suspended for 90 days vide order dated 05.08.2016 (Annex.2) by District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh. Thereafter, a reply was submitted by the petitioner on 03.10.2016 (Annex.3) to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 05.08.2016. However, the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh vide order dated 22.05.2020 (Annex.4) cancelled the licence No. 19/2006 which was issued to the petitioner for running fair price shop. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.05.2020, the petitioner herein preferred first appeal before the District Collector, Chittorgarh, however, the District Collector vide order dated 19.04.2022 (Annex.5) upheld the order dated 22.05.2020. Thereafter, aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2022 passed by the District Collector, the petitioner herein preferred revision petition before the Assistant Food Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, Jaipur and the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2023 (Annex.6) and orders dated 22.05.2020 and 19.04.2022 were upheld by the revisional authority. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant controversy is squarely covered by the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant controversy is squarely covered by the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8248/2021, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench had quash the impugned orders on the account that the petitioner had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and had also directed the petitioner to appear before the concerned District Supply Officer and file his reply while affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The said order is reproduced hereunder: “The case comes up on an application for early listing of the case. For the reasons mentioned in the application the same is allowed. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being heard and decided finally, today itself. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the grievance that the impugned order dated 22.07.2020 canceling petitioner’s license has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the outset conceded that proper opportunity of hearing could not be granted to the petitioner but instead of keeping the matter pending, the respondent No. 2 be permitted to pass fresh order. In view of the aforesaid and considering that the impugned order dated 22.07.2020 has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing, the same is quashed and set aside. The order dated 01.03.2021, passed by the District Collector, Nagore - Appellate Authority, vide which the impugned order dated 22.07.2020 has been affirmed, is also hereby set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned District Supply Officer on 21.07.2022 and file his reply. The respondent No. 2 shall consider the reply and provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the case after observing principles of natural justice, strictly in accordance with law. Till final order is passed by the District Supply Officer, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate his fair price shop. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.” 4. Till final order is passed by the District Supply Officer, the petitioner shall be allowed to operate his fair price shop. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that as the petitioner has not been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing, therefore, the respondents may be directed to afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass the order afresh, if required. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is not squarely covered by the order dated 08.07.2022 as in that case, a reasonable opportunity was not afforded however, in the present case, the petitioner has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned orders are rightly passed after due application of mind by the concerned authorities. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is seen that the respondents had issued a show-cause notice dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure-2) to the petitioner while pointing out as many as six irregularities after the shop of the petitioner was inspected whereby the petitioner was directed to appear personally before the respondents on 03.10.2016 at 10-o-clock with a reply/evidence. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.10.2016. Along with the said reply, the petitioner did not place before the concerned authorities the evidence/proof while refuting the allegations levelled against him. The petitioner submitted his reply on 03.10.2016. Along with the said reply, the petitioner did not place before the concerned authorities the evidence/proof while refuting the allegations levelled against him. The reply filed by the petitioner is reproduced hereunder: ^^lsok esa] Jheku ftyk jln vf/kdkjh egksn;] fpÙkkSM+xढ }kjk%& [ksejkt mfpr ewY; nqdkunkj nsoyh rglhy Mwaxyk & fpÙkkSM+xढ ¼jktŒ½ fo"k;%& vki }kjk fn;k x;k uksfVl Øekad@jln fof/k@258@2016 fnukad 05&08&2016 ds tokc ckcr~A egksn; th] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd eq>s ÁkFkhZ mfpr ewY; nqdkunkj dks vki }kjk fn;k x;k uksfVl dk tokc fuEu izdkj ÁLrqr gSA ¼1½ ;g fd uksfVl dh dye la[;k 01 dk tokc gS fd vR;f/kd cjlkr gksus ls ,oa fly ls mDr cksMZ dkbZ te xbZ ftlls Án'kZu lgh vafdr ugha ik;k x;k tks vc iw.kZ :i ls lgh vafdr dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼2½ ;g fd uksfVl dh dye la[;k 02 dk tokc gS fd dye la[;k 01 esa n'kkZ;k x;k rF; gh ekuk tkosA ¼3½ ;g fd uksfVl dh dye la[;k 03 dk tokc gS fd ekufld ekufp= l{ke vf/kdkjh ls Ásf"kr djok fn;k x;k gS Hkfo"; esa /;ku j[kwaxkA ¼4½ ;g fd dye la[;k 04 dk tokc gS fd uksfVl esa vafdr fd;k x;k LVkd iw.kZ lgh lgh gSA ¼5½ ;g fd uksfVl dh dye la[;k 05 dk tokc gS fd iqfyl }kjk ,d LVkd jftLVj ys tk;k x;k tks muds ikl esa gh gS ftlesa mDr lHkh eky dh jlhns esjs ikl gksdj eSus eky [kkyh djokdj ÁkIr dh gS rFkk pkyku ds vuqlkj eSaus lkexzh ÁkIr dh gSA ¼6½ ;g fd uksfVl dh dye la[;k 06 dk tokc gS fd mDr eq>s nqdkunkj }kjk esjk eky iw.kZ esjs }kjk ÁkIr dj fy;k x;k ftlesa esjh dksbZ tokcnkj eky ÁkIr djus ds ckn esa ugha gksrh gS vkSj esjs }kjk eky ÁkIr djus ds ckn esa xkMh dh iqfyl }kjk tkap dh xbZ gSA vr% Jheku ls ÁkFkZuk gS fd mDr ekeys esa tokc uksfVl Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj dk;Zokgh Mªksi djkosaA fnukad 03&10&2016A** 8. From a bare perusal of the reply, it is seen that the petitioner in respect of allegation No. 1 and 2 submitted that on account of rains, the board was not in place, however, now the same has been put in place. From a bare perusal of the reply, it is seen that the petitioner in respect of allegation No. 1 and 2 submitted that on account of rains, the board was not in place, however, now the same has been put in place. The petitioner in respect to allegation No. 3 submitted that the monthly map has been forwarded through the Competent Officer and the petitioner shall be careful in future. The petitioner in reply to the allegation No. 4 submitted that the stock mentioned in the notice is completely correct. The petitioner in respect to the allegation No. 5 replied that the staff register was taken away by the Police authorities and the receipts of the goods is with the petitioner and the goods received by the petitioner are in accordance with the challan. The petitioner in respect to the last allegation No. 6 responded that all the goods have been fully received by the petitioner from the said shopkeeper after which the petitioner is not answerable and also the concerned vehicle was examined by the Police authorities. This Court also finds that the petitioner was afforded not only a opportunity of hearing by remaining present before the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh but also he was afforded an opportunity of giving the copy of the reply along with the evidence/proof. However, the petitioner has not given any evidence or proof before the said authority so much so that even the reply (Annexure-3) has been filed in a very casual manner and has also assured the respondent authorities that he shall be careful in future. 9. The District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh vide order dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-4) after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner cancelled the license with immediate effect and the security amount was also confiscated. From a bare perusal of the said order dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-4), it is seen that the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh while taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner and after application of mind has passed the said order as the petitioner was unable to satisfy the District Supply Officer the reason for the irregularities that were found upon inspection of the shop. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-4) preferred an appeal before the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh which came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2022 against which the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Food Commissioner, Department of Food and Civil Supplied, Rajasthan which also came to be dismissed. 10. This Court also finds that the Appellate Authority in its order dated 19.04.2022 (Annex.5), has categorically observed that the appellant has violated the conditions no. 6, 8, 9 and 10 of the Authorization Letter issued under the Rajasthan Foodgrains and Other Essential Articles (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1976 and has thus committed irregularities, which is a punishable offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is also seen that the appellant has not displayed the price as well as the stock of shop. Further, the Appellate Authority, after examining all the documents and record available had found that the date and time for opening the shop was also not displayed outside the shop by the appellant. The Appellate Authority also observed that during the physical verification 22705.900 kg wheat was found in 466 sacks, 128 kg sugar was found in 3 sacks and 1073 litres kerosene was found in 7 drums. The Appellate Authority also observed that due to the record being taken away by the Police and thus, not being available on the spot at the time of physical verification, the goods as recorded in the stock of the shopkeeper could not be verified with the goods that were actually found in the petitioner’s shop. Also, an FIR has been registered against the petitioner before the Police Station Dugla, for keeping wheat in an unauthorized warehouse and further, investigation is ongoing in the said matter. Thus, on the basis of these facts, the Appellate Authority has observed that the fair price shopkeeper, i.e. the petitioner had taken an unfair advantage by indulging in black marketing of wheat and in such a situation, there appears no need to make any amendment or interference in the order passed by the District Supply Officer. Also, the Revisional Authority, after passing a detailed order and applying its mind has concurred with the findings given by the Appellate Authority. 11. Also, the Revisional Authority, after passing a detailed order and applying its mind has concurred with the findings given by the Appellate Authority. 11. Therefore, this Court finds that the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority while passing the orders dated 19.04.2022 (Annex.5) and 20.09.2023 (Annex.6) have considered the grounds set out in the appeal and revision respectively and have also considered the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh and have rightly upheld the order dated 22.05.2020 (Annex.4). Thus, this Court does not find any error in the impugned orders. 12. Thus, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds that the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing and therefore no interference is called for in the orders dated 22.05.2020 (Annex.4), 19.04.2022 (Annex.-5) and 20.09.2023 (Annex.-6). The writ petition is dismissed being bereft of merits. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.