MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

1. Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta appears for the petitioner and Sri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel appears for the State-respondent.

2. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned cancellation order dated 23.6.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja, Allahabad/fifth respondent as well as the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by District Magistrate, Allahabad/second respondent, with a further request to quash the re-enquiry report dated 31.5.2018 passed by Supply Inspector, Meja, Allahabad/sixth respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the order dated 7.12.2017 (annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) wherein the District Supply Officer, Allahabad had proceeded to observe on the basis of enquiry, allegations so leveled against the petitioner were partly proved and had recommended imposition of forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 5,000/- restoring the contract of the shop. The said recommendation was rejected by the District Magistrate in two lines order on the same day and further directed to hold denovo/re-enquiry, which is illegal and bad in law. Thereafter, in compliance of the said order, the Supply Inspector, Meja proceeded for re-enquiry without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and submitted report before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja on 31.5.2018 and on the basis of said ex-parte enquiry report, the order impugned has been passed, whereby, license of the petitioner has been cancelled, which is against the principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No. 10039 of 2013 Kaleem Ullah Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and as such it is sought to be contended that the petitioner ought to have been permitted to participate in the aforesaid inquiry. The statements of the complainants should have been recorded in the presence of the petitioner, and without furnishing the copy of the statements of the complainants to him, who had deposed against the petitioner, and thus any such action based on any such report or evidence could not become a foundation for passing an order of cancellation of fair price licence of the petitioner as cancellation has civil consequences.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to follow the procedure, which is prescribed in Government Order dated 29.07.2004, which provides the procedure for suspension/cancellation of fair price shop licence, so that the officers cannot proceed in illegal manner, and unnecessary litigation may be avoided. He also placed his reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58470 of 2005 (Harpal Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 26.2.2008, reported in 2008(3) ADJ 36 (DB). For ready reference the relevant paras nos. 9 to 15 are reproduced here in below:-

"9. From a reading of Clause 30 it is clear that the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1990 was superseded and repealed. Clause 31 of 2004 Order states that it will have effect irrespective on any thing contrary to it contained in any earlier order issued by the State Government. The 2004 Order was issued by the State Government for maintaining the supplies of food grains and other essential commodities and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Its Clause 21 is concerned with monitoring of fair price shops by the food officer and he was to make regular inspections. Clause 22 of the Order gave power to the Food Officer and other officers the power of entry, search and seizure and Clause 23 gave power to the State Government to authorize any person to inspect the stocks of scheduled commodities other than the officer mentioned in Clause 22. So far as the maintenance of supply of food grains and other essential commodities and their distribu