Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel and perused the records.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 27.7.2011 as well as 30.7.2013, whereby the fair price shop licence of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fair price shop licence of petitioner was earlier suspended on 18.11.2010. The petitioner feeling aggrieved preferred appeal under Clause 28 (3) U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 which was allowed vide order dated 21.12.2010 and the fair price shop license was restored. Now, on the same allegations another complaint was made on 3.5.2011. In this complaint allegations were made regarding non-distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner during the period December, 2009 to March, 2011. The complainant had earlier lodged FIR against the petitioner under Section 307 IPC. In fact, the petitioner has enmity with the complainant, namely, Nanbabu Gautam and Munna Lal Gautam. They had lodged false case registered as case Crime No. 267 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 352, 324, 307 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) SC/ST Act. The fair price shop licence of petitioner was suspended vide order dated 14.6.2011 and thereafter vide order dated 29.7.2011 the fair price shop licence of petitioner was cancelled. The appeal preferred thereafter before the Divisional Commissioner was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 30.7.2011.

4. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that the licence of fair price shop cannot be cancelled merely on lodging of a criminal case against him. The order impugned dated 29.7.2011 is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment dated 30.10.2009 of this Court in the case of Jagdish Narian Mishra v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28051 of 2008 and Smt. Raj Kumari Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(3) ADJ 638.

5. It is submitted that the petitioner had taken specific ground in this regard in his appeal, however, the appellate Court has failed to take into consideration the aforesaid judgments and has not properly decided the said issue.

6. It is also contended that the fair price shop licence of petitioner cannot be cancelled taking into consideration the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 as it relates to the procedure prescribed for allotment of fair price shop licence and it does not deal with the suspension or cancellation of fair price shop licence.

7. Submission is that suspension and cancellation of fair price shop license is governed by the Government Order 29.7.2004 and U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. Neither the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 nor the U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 provides that on lodging of a criminal case fair price shop licence can be cancelled. It is contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harpal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(3) ADJ 36, has considered the import of Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and has held that the procedure prescribed in the said Government Order is mandatory in nature and requires to be followed while passing the cancellation order. As per Government Order dated 29.7.2004 a fair price shop licence can be cancelled only on the basis of an enquiry held against the licencee.

8. The contention is that the impugned order has been passed without holding any enquiry and merely on lodging of a criminal case against the petitioner and, as such, the procedure prescribed under the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 has not been followed, hence the cancellation order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

9. It is also submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of Ranjit Singh