Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16064 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4898 of 2022 Petitioner :- Maharaj Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy Food And Civil Supply Govt U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Nath Tiwari,Jitendra Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11th April, 2022, whereby the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 16.07.2022, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was running a fair price shop in terms of the licence granted. Subsequently, a complaint was made against the petitioner and some inquiry was done and thereafter, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice on 03.12.2021. In terms of the inquiry report, it is evident that 39 card-holders had made allegations against the petitioner. Subsequently, however, in defence, the petitioner placed reliance on the statements and affidavits of 10 card- holders, who had deposed that they had earlier given the statement only under duress from the then Gram Pradhan, however, an order came to be passed on 11.04.2022 cancelling the shop. While doing so, the licensing authority had noticed the affidavits filed by the petitioner. However, he recorded that two of the card-holders had given a statement that they had not given any affidavits, which were proposed to be relied upon by the petitioner in his defence. He also, on the basis of ocular testimony, held that the said affidavits were forged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that said two persons are not the persons who had given the affidavits and one of them Indrawati, is a different and distinct from the card- holder, who had given an affidavit in support of the petitioner. He further argues that five other persons had also given affidavits before the appellate authority, however, none of those have been considered. 5. The orders impugned are founded on the premise that the affidavits filed by the petitioner are forged and an attempt was made to mislead the authorities. No finding has been recorded with regard to the alleged infirmities done by the petitioner on their own analysis and after verifying the same through ePos machine. A reverse burden has also been cast upon the petitioner to demonstrate that he did not discredit the statements given against him. 6. Finding the reasoning recorded by the licensing authority coupled with the fact that the affidavits of five persons were not considered by the appellate authority, the matter requires interpretation. 7. The impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority to consider and pass fresh order specifically considering the contention of the petitioner that the card-holder Indrawati was different and distinct person from Indrawati, who had given the affidavit. The appellate authority shall also consider and pass order on five affidavits filed before the appellate authority afresh. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of four months from today. 8. The petition stands disposed of in terms of above. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Ashutosh Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench