JUDGMENT :

PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Sri S. M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.2.2014 passed by the respondent no.2/Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad as well as order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the respondent no.3/Sub Divisional Officer, Kanth, Moradabad with further prayer to issue a mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the license of the shop of the petitioner as well as restore the supply of essential commodities to the shop of the petitioner forthwith.

3. The facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner is a fair price shop licensee of Village-Dariyapur, Block Thakurdwara Kath, District Moradabad. In this regard an agreement was executed between the parties and on the basis of the same petitioner was running the aforesaid fair price shop. The provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order-2004 was applied in order to run the aforesaid fair price shop.

4. An order dated 4.2.2013 was passed against the petitioner by which his license for fair price shop was suspended.

5. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 23.3.2013. Thereafter an order was passed by the respondent no.3 on 4.4.2013 cancelling the license of the petitioner to run the fair price shop. Against the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.2/Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad. The said appeal was rejected vide order dated 20.2.2014 and as such challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

6. From perusal of the records it reveals that the complaint was made against the petitioner. Various complaints were made against the petitioner that the petitioner has not given essential commodities to the card-holders not on the correct measurement. In response to the same the petitioner also submitted various affidavits of the same card holders stating therein that no irregularity was committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. It is contended that without considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the license of the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.3.

7. It is further contended that although various grounds were taken in the memo of appeal before the appellate authority but without dealing with the same and only after noting down the averments made in the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. Both the orders passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 are patently illegal because no cogent reason whatsoever has been given by the aforesaid authorities while passing the aforesaid orders. He further contended that the orders impugned were passed in violation of the procedural law, violation of principles of natural justice and against the principles of equity and fair play, as such they are liable to be set aside.

8. It is contended that during the course of enquiry and till passing of order of suspension of license of fair price shop at no point of time petitioner was directed to attend the alleged enquiry nor any opportunity was provided to the petitioner and the complainant/card holders.

9. In so far as the appellate order is concerned, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is also illegal in view of the fact that the same was passed without any application of mind. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments namely :-

(I) M/s Mahaveer Prasad Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1970 SC 1302.

(II) Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2013(9) ADJ 446.

(III) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jai Prakash Singh & anr. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 1692.

10. Apart from the same, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon following judgments namely :-

(