Hon’ble D.K. Arora, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Sitapuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for and on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and Sri Suresh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel on behalf of opposite party No. 3.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned appellate order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Up Zila Adhikari, Sandila, district Hardoi, by which licence of Fair Price Shop of the petitioner has been cancelled.

3. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition are as under :

4. The petitioner was having a licence of Fair Price Shop of Village Panchayat Kakrali, block Sandila, tehsil Sandila, district Hardoi. It is alleged that on account of extraneous reasons and on the instigation of the village Pradhan, the petitioner’s licence was suspended vide order dated 18.5.2007 on the ground of irregularities committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. Since the allegations/ charges in the suspension order were vague as no specific charge was described, it was not possible to submit the reply of the same. However, the petitioner in a bona fide manner submitted her reply on 25.5.2007 denying the allegations levelled against her. It was also mentioned by the petitioner in her reply that she has never committed any irregularities and always distributed essential commodities in just and fair manner and no grievance was ever raised by anybody against the petitioner except few interested persons particularly the village Pradhan. The opposite party No. 2 without appreciating reply and without holding any proper enquiry in the matter as well as without affording any opportunity to the petitioner passed the order dated 16.7.2007 thereby cancelling the licence of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop.

5. The impugned order reveals that while cancelling the licence of the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop a preliminary enquiry report dated 18.5.2007 of Supply Inspector was taken into consideration alongwith the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 4.3.2007.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a preliminary enquiry report of Supply Inspector dated 18.5.2007 and the resolution of Gram Panchayat dated 4.3.2007 was never supplied to the petitioner and the said material has been used against the petitioner behind her back. The Supply Inspector never associated the petitioner during preliminary enquiry and perusal of impugned order reveals that while establishing every charge the preliminary enquiry report of Supply Inspector dated 18.5.2007 was relied upon and the opposite party No. 2 in fact has not done any enquiry. It is also submitted that initially the licence of the petitioner was suspended on the same date, on which the preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Supply Inspector. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it was incumbent upon the opposite party No. 2 to hold full fledged enquiry by providing an opportunity of denying the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner in support of her reply also filed affidavits of number of persons who have stated on oath that they were getting properly essential commodities from the petitioner and it appears that none of the affidavit has been taken into consideration by the opposite party No. 2 while passing the cancellation order.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner except the so called preliminary enquiry report of the Supply Inspector dated 18.5.2007.

8. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the impugned cancellation order dated 26.12.2007 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.12.2007. The learned counsel points out that the appellate auth