IN HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2009 (MS) Ravindra Prakash ……….. Petitioner. Versus Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital and others. ……. …. Respondents Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand/ respondents. 29th April, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has a fair price shop at Village Sultanpur Patti, Tehsil, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar. The grievance of the petitioner is that initially an inspection was made of his shop and two kerosene oil drums pertaining to petitioner’s shop were found lying outside the resident of his father (Sri Om Prakash Arya), who has also a fair price shop in a village. On the basis of this, the petitioner was given a show cause notice, where the main allegation was that the petitioner has been found indulged in back marketing as two kerosene oil drums of his shop were found lying at the resident of his father, who is also a fair price shop owner. Consequently, thereafter, an inquiry was made and the license of the petitioner for running fair price shop was cancelled vide order dated 12.1.2009. While cancelling the license of the petitioner, the District Supply Officer/ respondent no.3 has given a finding that no satisfactory reply has been given by the petitioner as to why these drums were found lying outside the residence of his father, but this is not all. There are also allegations in the said order regarding the petitioner that there has been found over-writing in the ration cards etc. etc. In short, a fair price shop license has been cancelled. For the reason, for which not only the petitioner was charged under the show cause notice, but also for the reason the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing against the said order, however, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital/ respondent no.1. The Commissioner finding a discrepancy in the charges framed against the petitioner and the reasons assigned in the order passed by the District Supply Officer, stayed the operation of the order dated 12.1.2009 and directed the District Supply Officer to initiate proceeding against the petitioner de novo. The argument of the petitioner at this stage is that when the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital/ respondent no.1 was satisfied that an anomaly has been committed by the District Supply Office in his order dated 12.1.2009, that order should have been quashed. This court is totally in agreement with the petitioner that the order dated 12.1.2009 was liable to be quashed and is therefore, deemed to have been quashed by the Commissioner, Kumaon Mandal, Nainital. However, the second part of the order of the Commissioner must be complied with by the District Supply Officer and entire enquiry be initiated against the petitioner “de novo”, meaning thereby fresh charges shall be served on the petitioner and the order shall be passed by the District Supply officer after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This matter shall be decided by the District Supply Office as expeditiously as possible and in no case more than six weeks form the date of production of the certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Rathour