JUDGMENT : Alok Mathur, J. 1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1 to 3 and perused the material available on record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur whereby he has cancelled the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow wherein the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been dismissed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed fair price shop licensee for Village Panchayat Kanduwapur, Tehsil Mishrikh, District Sitapur. It has also been stated that there was no complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is running fair price shop for several years. Subsequently certain complaints were made against the petitioner levelling allegations regarding not giving the quantity of food-grains to which the villagers were entitled and also charging more than was due to be paid as consideration for the said goods. 4. On receipt of the complaints against the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Supply Inspector, Mishrikh, Sitapur. On the basis of the report submitted in this regard, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was suspended by means of order dated 07.04.2017. In the said suspension order, a copy of the allegations/charge sheet was also given to the petitioner. During the said inquiry, number of card holders had given the statements in support of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner had duly responded to the charge sheet. By means of the reply submitted on 20.04.2017, and on receipt of the response, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur, duly considered the reply of the petitioner and relied upon the allegations levelled against the petitioner, and also considered that in the allegations levelled against the petitioner it was found that instead of 5 kg per unit only 4.5 kg of food-grains were being disbursed and even the sugar was sold for Rs.30/-and only 800 gm was disbursed and similarly he found that the allegations levelled with regard to the kerosene oil was found proved against the petitioner. 5. 5. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh proceeded to cancel the fair price shop licence. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 28.03.2018 preferred an appeal before Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. The appellate authority also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and found that there were serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were found proved during the said inquiry and considering that the allegations levelled was serious, had rejected the said appeal. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of said fair price shop licence and also submitted that the evidence was in-fact adduced by her which were not adequately considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh and accordingly, prayed for interference by this Court in the present writ petition. 7. The writ petition has been opposed by the learned Standing Counsel. He submits that full opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and it is only after receiving the reply of the petitioner the impugned order of cancellation was passed. He further submits that all aspects of the matter has been duly considered by both the authorities and there is no infirmity in the same and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing both the impugned orders has submitted that in the reply submitted by the petitioner on 20.04.2017 before the Prescribed Authority it was specifically pleaded in paragraph no. 9 that an opportunity of personal hearing may be given to the petitioner before any decision is taken. The Prescribed Authority has passed the impugned order ignoring the request of the petitioner for personal hearing. The said fact has also been mentioned by the petitioner in paragraph no. 15 of the present writ petition. The said request has neither been considered by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, Sitapur nor by the appellate authority and even in the counter affidavit filed by the State, there is no specific denial of the said fact. 9. This Court is of the considered view that while filing the reply in case the licensee has specifically taken a plea that an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted to her before any passing order is passed. 9. This Court is of the considered view that while filing the reply in case the licensee has specifically taken a plea that an opportunity of personal hearing may be granted to her before any passing order is passed. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh Sitapur to have afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before proceeding to pass the order of cancellation. It is on this score, this Court is of the considered view that the Sub Divisional Magistrate by not granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has rendered the impugned order illegal, arbitrary and violative the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. 10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1 , has discussed the facets and importance of the Rule of Opportunity of being heard: "80.Audi alteram partem has several facets, including the service of a notice to any person against whom a prejudicial order may be passed and providing an opportunity to explain the evidence collected. In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 , this Court explained the wide amplitude of audi alteram partem : "96. The rule of natural justice with which we are concerned in these appeals and writ petitions, namely, the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence. The process of a fair hearing need not, however, conform to the judicial process in a court of law, because judicial adjudication of causes involves a number of technical rules of procedure and evidence which are unnecessary and not required for the purpose of a fair hearing within the meaning of audi alteram partem rule in a quasi-judicial or administrative inquiry." 81.Audi alteram partem, therefore, entails that an entity against whom evidence is collected must : (i) be provided an opportunity to explain the evidence against it; (ii) be informed of the proposed action, and (iii) be allowed to represent why the proposed action should not be taken." 10. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur and order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow are set aside. 11. The matter is remitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur for proceeding afresh in the matter from the stage of filing of reply of the petitioner. 12. It is noticed that reply of the petitioner is already on record and only opportunity of personal hearing is to be granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikha, District Sitapur. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur is directed to fix a date within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him for personal hearing to the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner undertakes to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate before the date fixed or any other date fixed within one week thereafter for personal hearing before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District Sitapur. After conclusion of the opportunity of personal hearing granted by this Court, he shall proceed to pass orders in the said matter within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands allowed.