Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) After receiving some complaint and after conducting inquiry on said complaint, the order dated 26.9.2016 was passed by respondent no.-2 (SDM, Aonla), district Bareilly suspending the agreement of fair price shop in question relating to petitioner Smt. Ramwati. By that order the petitioner was directed to submit her written explanation within one week along with documents relating to distribution of commodities. Admittedly, no explanation was given nor any document was produced before respondent no.-2 in compliance of order dated 26.9.2016. Then he had passed impugned order dated 13.10.2016 cancelling the agreement of fair price shop of the petitioner.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 26.9.2016 of suspension of fair price shop was communicated to the petitioner on 10.10.2016. He further submitted that when petitioner had moved application dated 14.10.2016 in that regard then the respondent no.-2 had passed back date order on 13.10.2016 for cancellation of fair price shop. He further submitted that petitioner was not furnished copy of the inquiry report or any document along with order dated 26.9.2016 and was not afforded opportunity of hearing. The said order of suspension and order dated 13.10.2016 of cancellation of agreement is erroneous and should be quashed. He also cited Dori Lal v. State of UP and others 2005 Law Suit (All) 1989 and contended that grant of licence had accrued the valuable right to petitioner which cannot be taken away except in accordance with law as mentioned in this judgment. Therefore, writ petition should be allowed.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel pointed out that there has been specific mention in impugned order dated 13.10.2016 that the order of suspension dated 26.9.2016 was received by the petitioner on 30.9.2016, but he had not furnished any explanation in its compliance. Therefore finding irregularities, said order of cancellation of agreement was passed.;