Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87471 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7361 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kandhailal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Srivastava,Madan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1.Order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.3-District Supply Officer, Fatehpur by which the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2.It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order impugned is bad in the eye of law. Petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment and order dated 23.12.2022 passed in Writ-C No. 34716 of 2022 (Somnath Dubey Versus State of U.P. and 2 others). The aforesaid order is extracted below:- "The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.3/District Supply Officer, Gorakhpur by which the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.2 but the same was also rejected by the respondent No.2/Joint Secretary (Food and Civil Supply) Gorakhpur vide its order dated 18.10.2022. Hence present petition. Apart from various other arguments, one of the argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that while cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner by the respondent No.2, no reason whatsoever has been assigned by him in its order dated 21.10.2021. It is argued that non-fling of the reply is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. It is argued that in the appeal, the petitioner has also taken this specific ground but the respondent no.2 without applying its judicious mind rejected the appeal vide its order dated 18.10.2022. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel accepted that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is absolutely non-speaking order and merely not filing of reply is not a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that non filing of reply is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty for the allegations made against him and the same cannot be treated to be sufficient for the purposes of cancelling the license for fair price shop, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the present writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the District Supply Officer, Gorakhpur/respondent No.3 and the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food and Civil Supply) Gorakhpur/respondent no.3 are hereby quashed. Original proceeding for cancellation of the fair price shop is hereby restored and the parties are relegated before the trial court/District Supply Officer, Gorakhpur, who has cancelled the fair price shop of the petitioner. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the present petitioner shall file a detailed reply along with the relevant documents to which he wants to rely on within four weeks from today before the District Supply Officer along with a certified copy of this order, who shall consider and decide the aforesaid matter expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereafter. It is expected that it should be decided by reasoned and speaking, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned without granting unnecessary adjournments. 3. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondent that in case petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid order, alternative remedy is available to the petitioner to file an appeal before the respondent no.2 under Section 13(1) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order, 2016. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, without interfering with the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.3, petitioner is directed to file an appeal under Section 13 (1) U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) order, 2016 within ten days from today. In case such an appeal is filed within the stipulated period, same shall be decided by the authority concerned in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 5. With the above observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. 6. In case any 3rd party right is created during pendency of the writ petition, same shall be subject to final out come of the writ petition. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad