Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.)THE petitioner, a fair price shop licensee, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders of cancellation of licence of fair price shop with the allegation that action is politically motivated and violative of principles of natural justice. Brief facts giving rise to the writ petition, are as under :
(2.)THE petitioner possessed a licence to run a fair price shop in village Afjalpur district Moradabad. By an order dated 24.10.2007, the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner, was suspended and later on, cancelled on 13.9.2007. An appeal was preferred and the learned Commissioner, Moradabad had stayed the order dated 25.10.2007 as well as the order dated 13.9.2007 and later on, allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated 27.12.2007. THE appellate authority while allowing the revision contained in Annexure-1 observed that the order of cancellation of licence was passed without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. THE allegation with regard to non-supply of foodgrains and kerosene oil to the card holders, were found to be incorrect by the appellate authority. No reason was given by the Deputy Collector while cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner while disbelieving reply.
In compliance of appellate judgment (supra), licence was restored on 29.12.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner had lifted the commodities on 30.12.2007. Suddenly, on very next date, a surprise inspection of the petitioner's fair price shop was done on 31.12.2007. At the time of inspection, the petitioner was not present and had gone to medical treatment to Moradabad for her heart ailment. In pursuance of the inspection note again the petitioner's licence of fair price shop was suspended by the order dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) and thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 21.1.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was served to the petitioner. The charge-sheet basically contains four charges, i.e.,

(i) the petitioner does not belong to same village ; (ii) She was not present at the time of inspection ; (iii) the documents of sale and stock register were not available ; and (iv) the petitioner had not deposited the document of sale in the month of November and December, 2007.
In pursuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted reply and stated that on 31.12.2007, she had gone to avail medical aid at Yashoda Heart and Chest Centre, Moradabad. Accordingly, on that day, the fair price shop was not opened. It was further stated by the petitioner that she had distributed the kerosene oil to the cardholders and the total number of cardholders were 445. However, in reply of the petitioner had inadvertently mentioned the number as 517, though cardholders were 445 in number. The petitioner submitted medical certificate as well as the certificate issued by the Pradhan to establish that she was at Moradabad for medical treatment and she belongs to same village. The petitioner also stated that since in the month of November and December, 2007 she was not running the shop on account of suspension/cancellation of licence by the respondents, it was not necessary for her to submit the register to the authorities. It was also stated that since the petitioner's licence of fair price shop was cancelled, the quota was lifted by one Bhanumati and only after allowing of appeal by the order dated 27.12.2007 (supra), she was entitled to run the fair price shop and she lifted commodities on 30.12.2007.
Without considering the reply of the petitioner the licence was cancelled by the impugned order dated 21.4.2008. While cancelling licence the S.D.M. had travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The other ground relied upon by the S.D.M. was that the signature of the doctor does not resemble with the prescription. The other ground is that the petitioner has not distributed the sugar to card holders as required in quantity and she has not distributed sugars and food grains to 517 card holders and only 445 card holders were distributed sugars and food grains. All the three grounds were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. While filing appeal, the petitioner stated before the appellate authority that there are only 445 card holders and not 517. The number of 517 card holders was inadvertently mentioned instead of 445 card holders as is evident from the impugned order itself. The petitioner further stated that the grounds relied for cancellation of licence were not mentioned in the charge-sheet. Hence, the S.D.M. had violated principles of natural justice. It was also stated by the petitioner that the licensing as well as the appellate authority had acted under political pressure. The newly appointed licensee (opposite party No. 5) is the daughter of opposite party No. 4, who is the Cabinet Minister. However, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.)WHILE preferring the writ petition in para 7 of the writ petition it has been categorically pleaded by the petitioner that the petitioner's fair price shop licence has been cancelled because, the opposite party No. 4 who is the Minister in the Cabinet of the State Government wanted that the licence of the fair price shop be given to his daughter Smt. Shahin who has been arrayed as respondent No. 5 in the present writ petition. Admittedly, after cancellation of the licence, it has been allotted to the respondent No. 5. The relationship has not been denied while filing counter-affidavit by the respondents.
A plain reading of the impugned order indicates that it has been passed on different grounds other than what was enumerated in the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008. While submitting reply the petitioner seems to have reasonably explained the allegations with regard to charges contained in charge-sheet. It appears that the S.D.M. without considering the reply of the petitioner has passed the impugned order and travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet. At the face of record, it is evident that the petitioner has been denied the opportunity to make submission on the allegations relied upon by the S.D.M. while passing the impugned order of cancellation of licence. The appellate authority has also not considered the fact that there are only 445 card holders in the village entitled for kerosene oil. Moreover, it was incumbent on the appellate authority to consider the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal with regard to submissions made by the petitioner that the S.D.M. has travelled beyond the allegations contained in the charge-sheet dated 21.1.2008 but it has been not done.