Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the records.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.7.2016 mainly on the ground that the order impugned has been passed at the dictates of the District Magistrate, Hardoi, without proper application of mind. It is also contended that the opposite party No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate has no power or authority to recall/review its earlier final order.

3. Learned standing counsel was directed to seek instructions.

4. With the consent of parties’ counsel, the matter is being decided finally without calling for the counter-afidavit as it involves trivial question of law.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 16.7.2016 the license of fair price shop of petitioner has been cancelled. It is submitted that on the complaint of Smt. Somwati an enquiry was done by the Regional Food Inspector on 14.4.2016 in which certain alleged irregularities were found and the license of fair price shop of petitioner was suspended vide order dated 16.4.2016. On the basis of the enquiry report, a notice was issued to petitioner to which he had submitted his reply/explanation vide letter dated 30.5.2016. The opposite party No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate considering the entire material on record including the explanation submitted by the petitioner had taken a final decision dated 7.6.2016 to the effect that the security amount deposited by the petitioner at the time of grant of license shall be confiscated and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- with a warning shall be imposed. The license of fair price shop of petitioner was restored. It was thereafter that one person, namely, Narpati son of Paragi submitted application dated 21.6.2016 before the District Magistrate, Hardoi on which the District Magistrate vide order dated 5.7.2016 had issued direction to the opposite party No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate to recall his earlier order as the allegations made against the petitioner are of very serious nature and there are sufficient grounds to cancel his license of fair price shop. It was on these dictates of the District Magistrate that the opposite party No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate vide impugned order dated 16.7.2016 has recalled its earlier order dated 7.6.2016 and provided that license of fair price shop of petitioner shall remain suspended.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the opposite party No. 3 has no such power to review/recall its earlier final order dated 7.6.2016. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind as it has been passed on the dictates of the District Magistrate.

7. Learned standing counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that the District Magistrate was of the opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner were of serious nature. There were sufficient grounds for cancellation of fair price shop license and, therefore, on the complaint received by him had directed the opposite party No. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate to reconsider his decision dated 7.6.2016 and thereafter the opposite party No. 3 has passed the impugned order.

8. It is also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order an enquiry has been conducted by the Regional Food Officer and report has been submitted in which, prima facie, petitioner has been found guilty of certain serious irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities. Considering the said report a charge-sheet alongwith notice has been issued to petitioner and the reply of the petitioner is still awaited. No final order has been passed so far.

9. The short question involved in the writ petition is as to whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate has power or authority to review/recall its order dated 7.6.2016 which had attained finality more-so when the impugned order has been passed without application of independent mind by the competent authority.

10.