JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was a licence holder of fair price shop issued under the provisions of the order passed under Essential Commodities Act. On the basis of the complaint moved the Gram Pradhan, the licence of the petitioner was suspended on 9.6.2006 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal on 21.6.2006. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 9.6.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as no opportunity was afforded to him and after remand, the petitioner tendered his reply alongwith ninety documents, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, without considering the aforesaid reply as well as documents, which have been relied in support of the averments made in his reply, cancelled the license of the petitioner vide order dated 23.8.2006. Against the order dated 23.8.2006, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal by means the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the impugned orders passed by the opposite parties are in violation of principles of natural justice and further, they acted arbitrarily while passing the orders without considering the evidence on record.
3. In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel submits that after enquiring the matter by the Regional Supply Inspector the petitioner's fair price licence was cancelled and the orders passed by the appellate authority and Sub-Divisional Magistrate are well reasoned orders and they do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record as also the orders of the appellate authority and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, while cancelling the petitioner's fair price licence, has not afforded opportunity of hearing in spite of directives issued by the Commissioner and further he has not considered the documentary evidence and explanation filed by the petitioner on 18.7.2006. The appellate authority by a non-speaking has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
5. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 14.12.2006 and 23.8.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Mohammdai, District Lakhimpur Kheri respectively are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing fresh order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering the relevant documents which have been submitted by the petitioner while tendering his reply dated 18.7.2006 before the Sub-Divisional Officer.