The main legal point established is that the principles of natural justice require the provision of relevant documents to the affected party to afford them a fair opportunity of defense.

Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.6.2011 as well as order dated 27.1.2012, whereby agreement of fair price licence of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned has been passed in most arbitrary and illegal manner and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was neither provided the relevant documents, such as, enquiry report i.e. surprise inspection report nor statements of Antyodaya card holders. He was also not provided the adequate opportunity of defence by the competent authority before passing the order of cancellation of agreement of fair price shop licence of petitioner.

4. It is submitted that on the direction of Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies Inspection Committee had inspected the fair price shop in absence of petitioner and had recorded alleged statements of some Antyodaya card holders. On the basis of the report submitted by the Inspection Committee the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies had issued direction pursuant to which the competent authority had suspended the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The petitioner failing aggrieved had preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda which was disposed of directing the competent authority i.e. Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to provide opportunity of filing reply to the charge sheet and thereafter decide the matter on merit within one month. It is submitted that before the order dated 15.6.2011 passed in appeal could be served the competent authority by impugned order dated 28.6.2011 had cancelled the agreement of fair price shop licence of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the appeal preferred against the said order has been rejected by opposite party no.1 in a very hurried manner without application of mind.

5. Learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the records. The records have been produced before the Court. The counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite parties.

6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies had constituted a team to inspect the fair price shop in sixteen different development blocks of District Gonda. The Inspection Committee had inspected the fair price shop of petitioner on 25.2.2011. The Committee had also recorded the statement of APL card holders. Considering the report submitted by Inspection Committee the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies had directed the competent authority to initiate proceedings for cancellation of fair price shop licence of the petitioner. It was pursuant to the said direction that the fair price shop of petitioner was suspended and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he was also given a charge sheet. The charges made against the petitioner were found to be proved and, as such, by the impugned order dated 28.6.2011 the competent authority had cancelled the agreement of fair price shop licence of petitioner. It is submitted that the appellate authority has upheld the order of cancellation and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

7. I have considered the submissions made by parties' counsel and gone through the records.

8. The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the enquiry report and the statement of card holders and other materials which were considered by the competent authority while passing the order of cancellation of fair price shop licence were required to be provided to the petitioner in order to give him sufficient opportunity of defence before passing the cancellation order.

9. This Court in the case of Ram Kripal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others {Writ Petition No.4011 (MS) of 2010} vide judgment and order dated 5.5.2011 has he