Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4249 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7518 of 2022 Petitioner :- Lata Sharma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukul Kumar Sharma,Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 15.10.2020 passed by Opposite Party No.3 whereby fair price shop license was cancelled as well as order dated 26.07.2022 whereby the appeal was dismissed. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was running a fair price shop and on account of allegations levelled, a show-cause notice was issued on 10.04.2020. The petitioner was called upon to file a reply. As the petitioner did not file reply, a suspension order came be passed on 02.09.2020. Subsequently, the fair price shop license was cancelled vide order dated 15.10.2020. Subsequently, as per the record, the said order was affixed on the shop in question on 03.09.2020. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice. The said reply was dated 13.10.2020 and was actually received in the office on 19.10.2020 - a date after the passing of the cancellation order. The petitioner preferred an appeal. In the appeal it was specifically stated that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. It was also pleaded that the statements purported to be relied upon against the petitioner were never supplied to the petitioner, as such, the entire proceedings which led to passing of the cancellation order on 15.10.2020 were bad in law. The appellate authority after hearing the counsel for the appellant held that the documents supplied alongwith the inquiry report were not controverted. The appellate authority considered the reply submitted by the petitioner at the appellate stage and after discussing the reply, proceeded to affirm cancellation order and dismissed the appeal. Both the said orders are under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the documents purported to be relied upon were never supplied to the petitioner. 5. In terms of the said statement, this Court had summoned the original record, which has been produced. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that in any event it was incumbent upon the respondents to have given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents who had deposed against the petitioner which was not done. He argues that the said process is contrary to the mandatory provisions prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. In the light of the said, he argues that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and the shop in question may be restored to the petitioner. 7. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon the records available with him, argues that the copies of the documents relied upon were duly received by brother-in-law of the petitioner, the same were also sent under registered cover and in fact, in the reply which was submitted subsequent to the passing of the order, a specific defense has been taken in respect of the statements made by various card holders. The said defense is on record as Annexure - 4. 8. In the light of the said, he argues that once the appellate Court has considered the defense purported to be taken by the petitioner, the impugned orders require no interference and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, it is fairly well settled that principles of natural justice are inbuilt in any quasi adjudicatory function. In terms of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 also, the provisions of compliance with the natural justice are inbuilt. In the present case, the reply submitted by the petitioner after passing of the cancellation order prima-facie denotes that the petitioner was aware of the allegations levelled, as the petitioner has specifically replied to the averments made by the deponents by highlighting their serial number also, which is not possible unless the petitioner had received the copy of the documents purported to be relied upon, thus, the first submission that the documents were not supplied merits rejection and is rejected. 10. The appellate Court in its order has considered the defense and the arguments as raised by the appellant before the appellate authority and has dealt with the defense taken by the petitioner also. No request appears to have been made at the appellate stage by the petitioner seeking his right to cross- examine any of the persons who had deposed against the petitioner. 11. In the light of the said, it cannot be said that the petitioner was occasioned with any violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled that the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is to confine to the glaring errors or any errors which go to the root of the matter - it is not an appeal in disguise. 12. For the reasons recorded above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 22.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench