Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the record.
(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 20.10.2012 and 20.01.2015 whereby the license of fair price shop of petitioner has been cancelled and the appeal preferred against the said order has been rejected.
(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was a fair price shop licensee for gram panchayat Deeh, development block Bichhiya, tehsil Sadar, district Unnao. On a complaint made by one Radhey Shyam, the fair price shop license of petitioner was suspended vide order dated 29.6.2012 and a show cause notice was issued to petitioner alleging therein that certain ration cards have been found to be issued in duplicate and some forged ration cards in the name of persons, who are not the resident of the village, have been issued and petitioner had been getting the essential commodities on the basis of those ration cards and is guilty of misutilizing the said essential commodities. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order had filed appeal under Clause 28 (3) U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (for short 'Distribution Order 2004') registered as Appeal No. 1873/11-12 and said appeal was decided by the appellate authority vide order dated 10.09.2012 whereby the matter was remanded to the competent authority with direction to provide copies of complaint, enquiry report and statement, etc. which were recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh giving opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner was also directed to submit records with respect to distribution of essential commodities for the last six months along with certified copy of the order dated 10.09.2012. Thereafter, notice dated 08.10.2012 was issued to petitioner calling for reply. The petitioner in compliance thereof submitted his reply dated 15.10.2012 and requested the opposite party no. 3 for opportunity of personal hearing in the matter. The opposite party no. 3, however, without providing opportunity of personal hearing to petitioner passed the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop license of petitioner in most arbitrary and illegal manner.;