JUDGMENT : IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State, Shri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Goan Sabha. 2. During course of submissions it has been pointed out that Officer (District Supply Officer, Sultanpur) who has passed the order impugned, has not been made party to the writ petition. 3. In view of the above, Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Supply Officer as respondent no.8 in the array of parties. 4. The present writ petition has been directed against the order of cancellation dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and order dated 5.7.2017 passed by District Supply Officer, Sultanpur. 5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner runs fair-price shop since 2006 to cardholders of the village in question. A complaint was filed against the petitioner at the behest of Gram Pradhan on 13.05.2016 and inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner levelled certain charges. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges levelled against him stating therein that the Gram Pradhan due to enmity is continuously creating hindrance in proper functioning of the fair-price shop, therefore the petitioner sent letter to the authorities on 28.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 14.12.2016. Upon enquiry and after consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, vide order dated 20.12.2006 entire stock of the petitioner was found to be in order. The petitioner again wrote a letter to the S.D.M., Sultanpur informing him about illegality being committed by the Gram Pradhan on 18.1.2017. Vide order dated 7.2.2017 Gram Pradhan started pressurizing the authority to transfer cardholders to other shop. In the meantime, another complaint was filed against the petitioner on 20.12.2016. The S.D.M. inquired into the said complaint and gave clean cheat to the petitioner vide report dated 18.4.2017. Another request was made by the petitioner to the authority for deputing an officer for peaceful distribution of foodgrains to the cardholders. The said letter was sent on 26.12.2016 and 15.5.2016 and an inquiry was done upon the complaint of the petitioner recorded in the report dated 23.5.2017 that the Gram Pradhan was restraining people from taking ration from the petitioner’s shop. The said letter was sent on 26.12.2016 and 15.5.2016 and an inquiry was done upon the complaint of the petitioner recorded in the report dated 23.5.2017 that the Gram Pradhan was restraining people from taking ration from the petitioner’s shop. Another report was submitted on 27.5.2017 wherein it was recorded that the people were not taking ration due to enmity of Gram Pradhan with the petitioner and also recorded that some unknown person tried to make hindrance in the distribution system even during the time of distribution officer was himself present on the spot. Another complaint was filed against the Gram Pradhan by the anganwadi worker stating that the Gram Pradhan is coercing her and pressurizing her to verify false/ illegal ration cards. On 19.5.2017, certain individual at the behest of Gram Pradhan filed complaint against the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was suspended on 12.06.2017. The petitioner filed reply and the same was taken on record on 29.6.2017. A complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging the same fact on 4.7.2017. Immediately after the complaint dated 4.7.2017, the licence of the petitioner’s shop was terminated without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order of cancnellation on 10.7.2017. During pendency of the appeal, Gram Sabha passed resolution in favour of Smt. Sakeela Bano who is relative of Gram Pradhan and living in the same house. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed in mechanical manner even without considering the facts and averments of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply submitted by the petitioner on four points which were not taken into consideration and in a harried manner, the order was passed allotting shop to Gram Pradhan’s family member i.e. Smt. Sakeela Bano. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court at page 31 of the paper-book and shown that on four charges reply was sought from the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner replied annexing therewith necessary document to show that there is no irregularity as alleged in the show cause notice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that while passing the impugned order of cancellation of shop, no reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration. 8. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner replied annexing therewith necessary document to show that there is no irregularity as alleged in the show cause notice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that while passing the impugned order of cancellation of shop, no reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Government Order dated 18.5.1999 restrains the family members of the Gram Pradhan to hold licence of fair-price shop in their favour. For ready reference, clause 1.8 reads as under: 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the provisions referred hereinabove, Smt. Sakeela Bano would not have been granted fair-price shop’s licence as she is member of family of the Gram Pradhan and is residing the same house i.e. House No.65. In support of his submission, the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards electoral roll to show that House No.65 starts from page 109 from the bottom, at serial no.596 name of Smt. Sakeela Bano finds place and at serial no.608 name of Mahzveen finds place. This clearly demonstrates that Smt. Sakeela Bano who has been given quota of fair-price shop is family member of the Gram Pradhan, therefore she cannot be given quota of fair-price shop in view of the restricted provisions provided under the Government Order dated 18.5.1999. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Appellate Authority has also not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter despite the fact that the specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal, therefore the order passed by the Appellate Court is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the order of cancellation has been passed in a very cursory manner without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been decided without taking into consideration the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, therefore the orders passed by the District Supply Officer as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 12. On the other hand, Shri Sudhkar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that she is not member of family of Gram Pradhan, therefore the quota allotted to her is just and valid. 13. 12. On the other hand, Shri Sudhkar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that she is not member of family of Gram Pradhan, therefore the quota allotted to her is just and valid. 13. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha submits that while passing the impugned order of cancellation reply submitted by the petitioner was not properly taken into consideration. 14. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record. 15. On perusal of the impugned order of cancellation, it is evident that reply was submitted by the petitioner in detail by annexing copy of the Board displaying required information under law but the same has not been considered by the District Supply Officer while passing the impugned order, therefore the order impugned dated 5.7.2017 has been passed in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore the order impugned dated 5.7.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Government Order referred hereinabove dated 18.5.1999 also reveals that no quota of fair-price shop can be allotted to the family member of Gram Pradhan and by annexing copy of the electoral roll, the petitioner has established that Smt. Sakeela Bano is family member of the Gram Pradhan, therefore, quota granted to Smt. Sakeela Bano is illegal and contrary to the Government Order referred hereinabove. 17. By means of the present writ petition, on the ground referred hereinabove, the petitioner has prayed to quash allotment order dated 1.8.2018 made in favour of Smt. Sakeela Bano who is family member of the Gram Pradhan. 18. In view of the reasons recorded above and facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 4.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizaba Division, Faizabad (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and order dated 5.7.2017 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sultanpur and order of allotment of quota dated 1.8.2017 are hereby quashed. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. After passing the order for quashing and allowing the writ petition, it has been pointed out that quota holder who is petitioner has died and legal heirs of the petitioner has already been arrayed as party to the writ petition, therefore, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baldiray, District Sultanpur is directed to hold a meeting in his presence and give preference to the legal heirs of family member of the deceased while issuing allotment of fair-price shop in accordance with Government Order dated 5.8.2019. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.