Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Upendra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12.7.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Etah District Etah by which the petitioner’s agreement to run the fair price shop has been cancelled.

3. While assailing the impugned order learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without discussing the charges levelled against him, taking note of the petitioner’s reply to the said charges, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4. Learned standing counsel as well as learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha submitted that the petitioner has got alternative remedy of appeal and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

5. Here in this case the agreement of the petitioner to run the fair price shop was suspended on the basis of the complaint regarding non supply of scheduled commodities to the card holders. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges levelled again him.

6. The Sub Divisional Officer without considering the reply of the petitioner in respect of each and every charge and without discussing the same in detail has cancelled the agreement of the petitioner with the following observation:

fodzsrk }kjk izLrqr Li"Vhdj.k dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;k] tks larks"ktud ugha ik;k x;kA vr% Jh egsUnz flag] mfpr nj fodzsrk] xgjkuk dh nqdku dk vuqcU/k i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA

7. From the perusal of the aforesaid order it is apparent on the face of the order impugned that the Sub Divisional Officer has not discussed the petitioner’s reply in respect of charges levelled against him.

8. In my opinion non consideration of the petitioner’s reply in respect of the charges levelled against him amounts to denial of effective opportunity of hearing which further amounts to breach of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition is being entertained in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1.

9. From the perusal of the impugned order it transpires that neither separate charge-sheet nor show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to file reply in respect of the previous charges.

10. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB), has held that in case, after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority decides to hold an inquiry for cancellation of the agreement then that requires full fledged inquiry, which, in view of the law laid down by this Court in Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014) and Smt. Santara Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(2) ADJ 70, means the service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the witnesses, copy of the complaints and other materials on which basis the inquiry is required to be conducted.

11. This Court in Abu Baker v. State of U.P. through Secretary (F.&S.) Government of U.P. at Lucknow and others, 2010(6) ADJ 339 and Gyan Singh v. State of U.P. and others (writ petition No. 33712 of 2006, decided on 12.9.2012), which has been followed in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2010, decided on 13.12.2012), has held that if the decision is based on the statements of the complainants/cardholders, then the copies of the statements have to be provided to the fair price shop agent, so that, he may be able to cross-examine the persons whose statements have been made basis for cancellation.

12. Here from the perusal of the averments in the writ petition it is app