Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—Similar questions of law having arisen in these two writ petitions, they are therefore being considered by this Court together.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Shri Krishnaji Khare and learned Standing Counsel and Shri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned Advocate who appeared to assist this Court on his own, as according to the counsel for the parties, the question involved in the aforesaid two writ petitions are substantial and needs to be decided finally to avoid spate of litigation in this Court on similar questions.

3. In Writ - C No. 58035 of 2017 petitioner Smt. Meena Devi has challenged the order dated 17.10.2017 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Mehdawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar cancelling fair price shop licence of the petitioner, and in Writ - C No. 3583 of 2018 the petitioner Gurudeen has challenged the order dated 3.11.2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil - Meja, District Allahabad cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners were running their fair price shops in the respective villages since long but due to political and personal rivalry false complaints were made alleging irregularities in distribution of essential commodities allocated to them. Inspection was done behind the back of the petitioners and on the basis of the statements made by the villagers in the preliminary inquiry, suspension orders were issued. Petitioners produced their Stock Registers and Distribution Registers before the Licensing Authority for inspection while filing their reply to the show-cause notice issued to them alongwith the suspension orders. The replies submitted by the petitioners were not considered and without holding an oral inquiry i.e. without fixing a date, time and place for the same and without recording the statements of witnesses and giving opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioners impugned cancellation orders have been passed.

5. It has been argued that such cancellation orders having been passed without following the principles of natural justice, the objections raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the availability of the statutory remedy under paragraph - 13 of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, was liable to be rejected in view of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Har Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2008) 4 ALJ 10; Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., (2007) 1 SLJ 407, M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, 2001(19) LCD 513 and several orders passed by the Hon’ble Single Judges in the following writ petitions :

1. Shakeel Ali v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 13 LCD 448;

2. Dori Lal v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 1 LCD 1121;

3. Raj Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 16 LCD 891;

4. Maiku Lal v. State of U.P., (2009) 27 LCD 1192;

5. Siya Ram v. State of U.P., (2009) 2 ADJ 170;

6. Abu Bakar v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 6 ADJ 339;

7. Mohd. Haneef v. State of U.P. and others, (2013) 120 RD 99;

8. Smt. Santara Devi v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 2 ADJ 70;

9. Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 8 ADJ 738;

10. Niyamat Jahan v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(7) ADJ 577;

11. Pradeep Kumar Rai v. State of U.P. and others : Writ - C No. 5390 of 2006 decided on 25.11.2011

12. Gyan Singh v. State of U.P. Writ - No. 33712 of 2006 decided on 12.9.2012;

13. Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2010: Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. decided on 13.12.2012;

14. Sabhapati Pandey v. State of U.P. and others, 2012(6) ADJ 308;

15. Writ - C No. 12737 of 2013 : Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. decided on 28.11.2014;

16. Writ - C No. 34755 of 2013 : Ausaf A