The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a full and proper inquiry before the cancellation of a license, adherence to rules of natural justice, and the importance of giving due weightage to government functionary reports.

JUDGMENT :

1. List revised. None appears for respondent no.3 whereas Shri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents are present.

2. None appears to press the C.M. Impleadment Application No.2 of 2018. It is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.

3. C.M. Amendment Application No. 14 of 2021 has already been allowed today, by a separate order.

4. Challenge has been raised to the order dated 22.5.2018 passed by espondent no.2/Sub Divisional Officer, Kaptanganj, District -Kushinagar. Thereby, the Licensing Authority has again passed an order cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop license for Gram Sabha Sindhawat, Block Ramkola, Tehsil Kaptanganj, District Kushinagar.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it transpires, the petitioner's fair price shop license was earlier cancelled by order dated 2.6.2017. That order was challenged unsuccessfully in appeal. The matter reached this Court in Writ -C No. 61636 of 2017 (Smt. Premlata Devi vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors.). That writ petition was allowed with the following observation:

"7. In fact, no observations have been made with regard to the issuance of Distribution Certificates at all in the impugned order. The argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has some substance as from a perusal of the impugned order of cancellation this Court finds that a detailed mention has been made to the circumstances leading to the passing of suspension order dated 12th of April, 2017 and thereafter, no mention has been made of the explanation submitted by the petitioner later on or to the Distribution Certificates issued by the Area Lekhpal for the month of March, April, May and June, 2016.

8. The orders impugned are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Licensing Authority to consider afresh in the light of the observations made herein above and pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into account all facts as mentioned by the writ petitioner in her explanation submitted after the suspension was passed. This exercise shall be completed by the Licensing Authority within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

9. Till a final order is passed by the Licensing Authority the current procedure being followed for distribution of the scheduled commodities shall continue to be following for the village concerned and it shall abide by the final order to be passed by the Licensing Authority in the case of petitioner.

10. The writ petition is allowed to this extent."

6. Thus, clear direction was issued in the proceedings thus remanded to the Licensing Authority, to pass a reasoned and speaking order taking into account the explanation submitted by the petitioner later to the issuance of the suspension order dated 12.4.2017 and after considering the distribution certificates issued by the Observer/Area Lekhpal for the months of March, April, May and June 2016. No other direction was issued as may have enabled the Licensing Authority to conduct a further enquiry and no opportunity had been given to the parties to lead any additional evidence. However, while giving effect to the remand order passed by this Court, the Licensing Authority constituted a fresh inspection team on 4.4.2018, almost one year after the suspension order dated 12.4.2017. At the same time, that Committee thus constituted by the Licensing Authority made an ex-parte enquiry without involving the petitioner to any extent. It claimed to have recorded adverse statements of 23 beneficiaries named in the impugned order. Upon issuance of notice, three days thereafter, on 7.4.2018, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply rebutting the ex-parte evidence, on 24.4.2018. She objected to the course adopted by the Licensing Authority and relied on further affidavits of the 23 beneficiaries (referred to the notice dated 4.4.2018), to contend that distribution of food-grains e