JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The petitioner was granted a license for running a fair price shop. By an order dated 23.2.2004 passed by the Deputy Collector, Swar, District Rampur, the license on the petitioner was placed under suspension. Thereafter on 1.3.2004, the Deputy Collector cancelled the license of the petitioner on the basis of a resolution passed by the Village Panchayat on 28.2.2004. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed on 6.12.2004 by the Assistant Commissioner (Food), Moradabad Division, Moradabad. The petitioner has, thus, filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 23.2.2004 and 1.3.2004 passed by Respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 6.12.2004 passed in appeal by Respondent No. 2 and has also prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to instate the supply of quota of essential commodities of fair price shop of the petitioner.
2. I have heard Sri Dinesh Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri N.K. Rastogi, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondent No. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being heard and disposed of at the admission stage.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 1.3.2004 has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing or issuing show cause notice and as such the same would be a nullity in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that the said order dated 1.3.2004 docs not contain any reason for cancelling the license of the petitioner except that it is based on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 28.2.2004.
4. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri Rastogi appearing for the respondents have, however, submitted that since a copy of the order dated 23.2.2004, whereby the license of the petitioner has been placed under suspension, had been forwarded to the petitioner, it was open to him to file a reply to the charges against him mentioned therein and since the impugned order dated 1.3.2004 had been passed more than five days thereafter, hence it would be presumed that the petitioner had at least five days opportunity to submit his reply, and as such the order dated 1.3.2004 cannot be said to have been passed without notice.
5. A perusal of the order dated 23.2.2004, whereby the license of the petitioner had been placed under suspension, shows that a copy of the said order had been forwarded to the petitioner but nowhere was it mentioned that the petitioner was to submit his reply. The same cannot be construed to mean that opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to submit his reply to the charges leveled against him. A perusal of the grounds of appeal would reveal that a specific ground had been taken by the petitioner before the Commissioner that no notice or opportunity was afforded to him before passing the impugned order. The Commissioner has not even dealt with this issue and the appellate order dated 6.12.2004 does not mention that the petitioner was granted any such opportunity.
6. By grant of license to the petitioner, a valuable right had accrued in his favour, which cannot, be taken away except in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why an order of cancellation of his license be not, passed against him. By merely forwarding a copy of the order of suspension to the petitioner, it cannot be said that opportunity was afforded to him. The entire proceedings have taken place in a great haste, that is to say, within five days of the passing of the suspension order the meeting of the Village Panchayat was called, in which it was resolved that the license of the petitioner should be cancelled and be granted to the respondent No. 4 and immediately on the next date, i.e. 1.3.2004, the order cancelling the license of the petitioner was passed solely on the basis of the resolution of the Village Panchayat. This it sell casts a doubt on the motive of the respondent-authorities in passing the impugned orders. The petitioner ought to have at least been given a copy of the resolution of the Village Panchayat as well as The enquiry report, if any, and it was only after the petitioner was given opportunity of submitting his explanation and hearing, that any order could have been passed in the matter. As such, for the foregoing, reasons, since the proper procedure has not been followed and there is gross violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 1.3.2004 passed by Respondent No. 3 and the order dated 6.12.2004 passed by the Respondent No. 2 are quashed. However, it shall be open to the Respondent No. 3 to pass fresh order, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which may be done expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the respondent No. 3.
8. This writ petition succeeds and is allowed in the terms indicated above. No order as to cost.