Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner’s fare price shop licence was suspended by respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.12.2005 on the allegations that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 by charging excess amount for the essential commodities from the BPL card holders and Antodaya card holders. By the same order, the petitioner was also required to show cause as to why his agreement be not cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice denying the allegations made against him and alongwith his reply, the petitioner also filed documents before respondent No. 3 for showing that the grounds on which the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement was sought to be cancelled were unfounded. After receiving petitioner’s reply, respondent No. 3 recorded the statements of some of the BPL and Antodaya card holders behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to cross examine the said witness and without furnishing him with the copies of their statements by his order dated 7.2.2006, cancelled the petitioner’s fair price shop holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved. Against the order of respondent No. 3 petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Appeal No. 153-A of 2004 and dismissed by him by his order dated 23.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the statement of the witness recorded behind the back of the petitioner and without the copies of the statements of the witnesses being furnished to him and also without giving him any opportunity to cross examine the witness who had deposed against him was not sustainable, action of the respondents No. 3 being in contravention of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the order of respondent No. 3 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 specifically on the aforesaid ground. However, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioner’s appeal without considering and recording any finding on the aforesaid issue raised before him.

3. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Raj Pal Singh v State of U.P. and others, 2008(26) LCD 931; National Building Construction Corporation v S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66; and D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the failure of the appellate authority to redeem the illegality committed by the respondent No. 3, licensing authority has rendered the order of the respondent No. 2 is also liable to be set aside.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any interference by this Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the impugned orders. A close reading of the order dated 23.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 shows that the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement was cancelled on the ground that he was charging excess amount from BPL and Antodaya card holders for the essential commodities meant for sale through public distribution system at a fixed price. The order further shows that respondent No. 3 had recorded the statements of several BPL and Antodaya card holders and while holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved he had relied upon the statements of the said witnesses. There is no material on record indicating either the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness who had deposed against him or the copies of the statements of witnesses so recorded were furnished to