Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:121424-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22775 of 2025 Petitioner :- Virendra Kumar Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Byas Mishra,Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Abhinava Krishna Srivastava,C.S.C.,Yash Padia Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur communicated by letter dated 26.06.2025 of Zonal Officer, Zone-VI, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar by which Shop No.203 situated at Gurudev Palace, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur Nagar allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner has not adhered to the terms and condition nos.3 to 5 of the agreement. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner has deposited the entire rent alongwith interest in the year 2024, and the petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, in such view of the fact, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 before passing the order cancelling the licence of petitioner. 4. Sri Yash Padia, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 submits that petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement, and therefore, in such view of the fact, there is no illegality in the impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. 5. Be that as it may, the order dated 25.06.2025 cancelling the licence of petitioner reveals that petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 25.06.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has also tried to demonstrate that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, but he could not demonstrate from the record that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding in the impugned order that the petitioner has dug a big hole for foundation and construction of an underground shop is perverse and had the petitioner been given any opportunity of hearing, he would have demonstrated that no hole had been dug for constructing any underground shop. 8. In such view of the fact, we are of the opinion that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner by respondent no.3 before passing the impugned order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off permitting the petitioner to submit a detailed representation alongwith certified copy of this order against the impugned order before the respondent no.3-Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam, Kanpur Nagar raising all his grievances within a period of three weeks from today. In the event of filing any such representation, the respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date he receives the representation of the petitioner. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Sattyarth (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J) (Saral Srivastava,J) Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad