Hon'ble Anant Kumar, J.

1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(i) A writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Mandal Gonda in Appeal No. 304/67 (Arif Khan vs. State of U.P. and Others) and also quash the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the opposite party no. 3 contained as ANNEXURE NO. 1 & 2 to this writ petition.

(ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS be issued commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to run the fair price shop of village panchayat Karaniya, Vikas Khand Risiya, Tahsil Nanparam, District Bahraich during pendency of the writ petition.

(iii) Any other order or direction in which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Petitioner was a fair price shop's licence holder in Gram Panchayat - Karniya, Vikas Khand Risiya, Tahsil - Nanpara, District - Bahraich. An inspection of his fair price shop was made by a Supply Clerk, Nanpara, Bahraich and certain irregularities were found. On the basis of said irregularities, the fair price shop of the petitioner was suspended vide order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned dated 24.05.2012 and an opportunity of submitting his reply was given to the petitioner. Petitioner had submitted his reply dated 19.06.2012 and after considering his reply, his licence of fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 03.07.2017. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner had filed a statutory appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda under Section 28(3) of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, which was dismissed vide order dated 09.06.2014, hence this petition.

4. In this case counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged.

5. Main grievance of the petitioner is that no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and copy of inquiry report was also not supplied to him. It is further stated that the Supply Clerk has got no authority to inspect the fair price shop of the petitioner, which is clear violation of principal of Rule 22 of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Distribution Order 2004, as per the said order, the Food Inspector, the Competent authority, the Senior Supply Inspector or Supply Inspector are the competent authority, who can inspect the fair price shop, therefore, the Food Clerk is not a authority to inspect the shop. This apart, it is also stated that the inquiry report had not been supplied to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him as provided in Government Order dated 29th July, 2004 and without giving proper opportunity of hearing and supplying the inquiry report, the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled, which is violation of principal of natural justice.

6. To substantiate his argument a case law report in Thakur Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2017 (35) LCD 128 has been cited, wherein it is held as under:

"10. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 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 vs. State of U.P. and Others [Writ (C) No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014] and Smt. Santara Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2016 (2) ADJ 70, means the service of the charge-sheet, inquiry report, statements of the cardholders/ complainants, copy of the complaints and other supp