Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Petitioner, who is a fair price shop licensee of fair price shop situated in village panchayat Itahuva, Bloc Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, aggrieved by the order of cancellation of fair price shop license dated 16.7.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, preffed an appeal before the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal Gonda. The appeal No. 268/323 so preferred by the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner.

2. The aforesaid both the orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The main ground of attack of the petitioner’s counsel is that the order of cancellation of fair price shop license was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj, without issuing any show-cause notice or associating the petitioner in any manner in the enquiry. As would be evident from the perusal of the said impugned order dated 16.7.2007 that some enquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and on the basis of said enquiry, the Sub Divisional Officer passed the impugned order. No where in the said impugned order it has been mentioned that Naib Tehsildar while conducting enquiry has recorded the statement of the petitioner or issued any notice to him for putting his version.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has contended that the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich has committed manifest error in law by cancelling the license of fair price shop of the petitioner vide order dated 16.7.2007 without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as such, the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

5. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid plea of non-affording of opportunity and the order of cancellation being ex parte was specifically raised before the appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda but the appellate authority rejected the appeal in a cursory manner without dealing with the pleas raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the appellate order is also bad in law and cannot be sustained.

6. On the other hand, learned standing counsel while defending the aforesaid two orders, submitted that the order of cancellation was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj, on the basis of report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar. It has also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner who was the licensee of the fair price shop, had suffered paralytic attack and was taking assistance of his son for running the shop. It has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has committed irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities.

7. Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the Courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Inquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry. [emphasis supplied]

8. Concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. Rules of natural justice are not rules embodied always expressly in a statue or in rules framed thereunder. They may be implied from the nature of the duty to be performed under a statute. What particular rule of natural justice should be implied and what its context should be in a given case must depend to a great extent on the fact and circumstances of that case, the framework of the statute under which