ORDER : ANIL KUMAR UPMAN, J. 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing a writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 25.11.2016 (Annx-2), 17.07.2018 (Annx-3) and 29.05.2019 (Annx-5) may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to restore the authorization of the petitioner for Fair Price Shop in dispute. Any other order which this Hon’ble Court deems proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition by the petitioner are that the petitioner was working under the authorization issued by the respondents in his favour as a Fair Price Shopkeeper in Gram Panchayat Harimpur, District Alwar. On 16.08.2016, due to alleged political enmity, the Enforcement Officer submitted a report against the petitioner, claiming that the shop was closed on that day, depriving consumers of their ration commodities. Based on this report, respondent No.3 issued a show-cause notice on 22.08.2016, stating that the shop was found closed on that date and directing the petitioner to appear for a hearing on 03.10.2016. It is averred that the show-cause notice was never served upon the petitioner, and he had no knowledge of such proceedings. Moreover, without providing the petitioner an opportunity to submit a reply, participate in a fair hearing, or cross-examine departmental witnesses, respondent No.3 passed an ex-parte order dated 25.11.2016, cancelling the petitioner’s authorization and forfeiting his security deposit. Upon learning about the order, the petitioner obtained copies of the order sheets and the impugned order dated 25.11.2016. He then filed an appeal before respondent No.2, which was dismissed on 17.07.2018. A revision petition challenging the orders dated 25.11.2016 and 17.07.2018 was filed before respondent No.1, but same was also dismissed on 29.05.2019. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all actions and orders taken by the respondents are illegal because the petitioner was neither given any notice nor provided an opportunity to be heard. The counsel further states that the notice claimed to have been served on the petitioner was never actually received by him. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that all actions and orders taken by the respondents are illegal because the petitioner was neither given any notice nor provided an opportunity to be heard. The counsel further states that the notice claimed to have been served on the petitioner was never actually received by him. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the notice was served upon him, the petitioner was still denied an opportunity to be heard because the notice dated 22.08.2016 directed him to appear and present his case on 03.10.2016. However, as per the order-sheets maintained by the office of the District Supply Officer, no proceedings were scheduled for that date. Upon examining the order-sheets, it is evident that the petitioner was actually directed to appear on 29.09.2016, however, no notice was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 29.09.2016. This clearly shows that the entire proceedings against the petitioner was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the order passed by District Supply officer cancelling the authorization of fair price shop and orders of appellate authority as well as revisional authority confirming the order of cancelling the authorization of petitioner are liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner had been given full freedom and opportunity to present his case. However, the petitioner neither replied to the show-cause notice nor appeared before the District Supply Officer to present his case. When the Court asked whether any action or note regarding absence of the petitioner was recorded on the date fixed i.e., 03.10.2016 as mentioned in the notice dated 22.08.2016, counsel fairly admitted that according to the record, no proceedings appear to have taken place on 03.10.2016. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. From the perusal of the file, it appears that a show-cause notice dated 22.08.2016 was allegedly issued to the petitioner, which has not been denied by the respondents. However, there is clearly no evidence or document on record indicating that this notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The only claim made by the respondents in their reply is that the petitioner had knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings being conducted against him. However, there is clearly no evidence or document on record indicating that this notice was ever served upon the petitioner. The only claim made by the respondents in their reply is that the petitioner had knowledge of the disciplinary proceedings being conducted against him. The record maintained by the District Supply Officer’s office reveals that no order was issued requiring the petitioner to appear and present his case on 03.10.2016. The order-sheet dated 17.08.2016 drawn by the office of District Supply officer shows that the petitioner was directed to appear and present his case on 29.09.2016, but no notice was issued to him in compliance of the said order nor any such notice is available on record. Therefore, it is explicit that there is no material available on record indicating that notice requiring the petitioner to appear and present his case on 29.09.2016 was ever issued from the office of the District Supply Officer. In such facts and circumstances, this court is of the firm opinion that the petitioner was not given any information regarding the proceedings instituted against him. Furthermore, it is also to be noted that from the notice dated 22.08.2016, it comes out that the only allegation levelled against him was that he had kept his shop closed and he had failed to provide ration to the consumers. But in the impugned orders, the reasons for which his fair price shop authorization was cancelled besides the aforesaid allegation, include misbehaviour with the consumers, failing to maintain the records, distribution of food grains in less quantity, among other serious irregularities. But such allegations are not reflected in the alleged notice dated 22.08.2016, which has been issued by respondent No.3. A fundamental rule of law is that any person is entitled to have correct and exact information about the allegations charged against him in the show-cause notice. In such a situation, the Court finds that before cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, he was not granted a sufficient opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice, and all the proceedings had been conducted without giving any prior notice or information to him. 7. In such a situation, the Court finds that before cancelling the fair price shop authorization of the petitioner, he was not granted a sufficient opportunity in consonance with the principles of natural justice, and all the proceedings had been conducted without giving any prior notice or information to him. 7. This Court is of the considered view that granting of opportunity of hearing must be established from the record and it is not merely formality and person concerned must be informed in clear terms regarding accusation against him enabling him to submit proper response. The primary purpose is to precisely inform the charged individual of the alleged misconduct or offense, thereby allowing them to fully understand the accusation and prepare an effective defence. Vague charges make it impossible for an individual to adequately respond or challenge the evidence/material placed against them. 8. I fortify my view from the reference answer given by the Allahabad High Court in case of Shankar Prasad v/s State of U.P. and others , MISC. SINGLE No. - 32679 of 2019 wherein following issue/question was referred to the Larger Bench:- (a) What are the parameters of principles of natural justice to be followed in inquiries conducted by Licensing Authority on complaints of irregularities in the distribution of Essential Commodities? While answering the reference, Hon’ble Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held as under:- “47. Thus, we answer the reference as under:- (i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show- cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry;” 9. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, impugned orders dated 25.11.2006, 17.07.2018, and 29.05.2019 as well as the show-cause notice dated 22.08.2016 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, same are quashed and set aside. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, impugned orders dated 25.11.2006, 17.07.2018, and 29.05.2019 as well as the show-cause notice dated 22.08.2016 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, same are quashed and set aside. Authorization of fair price shop in Gram Panchayat Harimpur, District Alwar is restored in favour of the petitioner and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to continue with the fair price shop in question. 10. The respondents would be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for cancellation of authorization of fair price shop of the petitioner in accordance with law, after serving fresh show- cause notice along with inquiry report and after providing fair opportunity of hearing. 11. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed in above terms. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.