A fair-price-shop authorization cannot be withdrawn without first affording the holder a hearing.

The petitioner received authorization to operate a Fair Price Shop on compassionate grounds following his father’s death.

After litigation initiated by respondent No. 4, the High Court directed the State to consider eligible applicants’ applications.

The petitioner’s authorization was subsequently granted, but respondent No. 3 later cancelled it temporarily while the applications were to be considered.

The petitioner challenged that cancellation, arguing that respondent No. 3 lacked jurisdiction and had acted without hearing him.

1. Whether respondent No. 3 had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, notwithstanding the Division Bench’s reference to the “Deputy Commissioner”.

2. Whether the impugned order was invalid because the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before his authorization was cancelled.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement to provide an affected person an opportunity to be heard before an order alters or withdraws an existing entitlement.

It also considered the Division Bench’s direction in W.A. No. 100074/2026, reading its reference to the “Deputy Commissioner” as referring to respondent No. 3, the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, in light of the judgment’s context.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The Court found no jurisdictional defect: in context, the Division Bench’s reference to the “Deputy Commissioner” was to be understood as referring to respondent No. 3, who had passed the earlier order granting authorization.

However, the petitioner’s authorization had been granted pursuant to an earlier court direction and remained in force. Any change divesting him of that authorization required that he first be heard. Respondent No. 3 had acted on the Division Bench’s direction without providing that opportunity, and describing the cancellation as temporary or provisional did not cure the breach of natural justice.

It allowed the petition, quashed the order dated 24 September 2026, and remitted the matter to respondent No. 3 to comply with the Division Bench’s directions, hear the petitioner personally, and thereafter pass an order in accordance with law.