HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10055 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Alok Srivastava, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. This court does not propose to go into the factual disputes involved in the matter and the learned Standing Counsel has consented for final disposal of writ petition after hearing his submissions without filing a counter affidavit. 3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity or an order dated 20.07.2024, passed by the District Supply Officer cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by filing Appeal No.3479 of 2024, under Section 13(3) of Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which has been dismissed by means of a judgement and order dated 15.05.2025, passed by Joint Commissioner Food, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the petitioner has also challenged the aforesaid order also. 4. It is recorded in the cancellation order dated 20.07.2024 that a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ashok Kumar Rana Ex Fair Prince Shop Holder Lko .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) notice dated 10.06.2024 was sent to the petitioner asking him to submit his reply but the petitioner did not submit any reply to the said notice. It has been stated in the writ petition that in response to the notice dated 10.06.2024 sent by the District Supply Officer the petitioner had submitted a report dated 26.06.2024 through registered speed post, copy whereof has been annexed with this petition. However, the same has not been taken into consideration while passing the cancellation order. 5. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and he has submitted that his reply dated 26.06.2024 also does not contain any sufficient explanation for the allegations. 6. Be that as it may, if the petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice it was incumbent upon the authority to take into consideration the petitioner's explanation before proceeding to pass any final order in the matter. The impugned order dated 20.07.2024 has been passed without taking into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner his his reply dated 26.06.2024 which renders it bad in law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.07.2024, passed by the opposite party no.3/District Supply Officer, District Lucknow, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.2 to the petition is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the opposite party no.3 for being decided a fresh after taking into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner in his reply dated 26.06.2024 (Annexure-7 to the petition). October 30, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 10055 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench