IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7368 of 2006 Jageshwar Yadav, S/o Late Budhan Yadav, Resident of village Kiyakhap, P.S. Rafiganj, District Aurangabad ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The S.D.O., Aurangabad Sadar, Aurangabad 3. Labour Inspector, Aurangabad, Rafiganj I & II …. …… Respondents For the petitioner : M/s N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv., Vijay Anand, Advocate. For the State : M/s Nilu Agrawal, GA-6, Jainendra Kr. Sinha, AC to GA-6 ----------- 02. 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the Fair Price Shop Licensee, bearing Licence No. 10/R/93. He has filed this writ petition challenging the order, bearing Memo No. 12 dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3 passed by the Licensing Authority i.e. S.D.O., Aurangabad, whereunder his aforesaid licence has been cancelled. Earlier, he was served with the show cause notice, bearing Memo No. 407 dated 29.4.2006, Annexure-1 asking him to show cause as to why his aforesaid licence be not cancelled in the light of the inspection report dated 11.4.2006, whereunder it was found that petitioner was not supplying the essential commodities to the red card holders. Having received the show cause notice dated 29.4.2006 petitioner submitted his reply Annexure-2 2 whereunder he disputed the finding recorded by the enquiry team and asserted that he was supplying essential commodities to the consumers attached to his shop with further desire that the allegationists be produced so as to enable him to cross-examine them. It appears without considering the aforesaid show cause reply, Annexure-2 the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3 was passed and the cause shown by the petitioner has been rejected without indicating any reason therefor. 3. The authorities have supported the impugned order by filing counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.2 which has been affirmed by the Executive Magistrate, Nalanda. From the counter affidavit also it does not appear that any of the consumers who reported against the petitioner that he was supplying lesser quantity of food grains/essential commodities to them was ever produced for being cross- examined by the petitioner. It is thus, evident that licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on mere ipse dixit of the reporting/licensing authority as from the records it does not appear that any of the consumer 3 attached to the shop of the petitioner was ever produced for being cross-examined by the petitioner. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3 and remit back the matter to the licensing authority. In the event, licensing authority wishes to proceed against the petitioner he should make available the allegationists for being cross examined by the petitioner. In case, the licensing authority is of the opinion that allegation made against the petitioner being vague then the matter is not required to be pursued further and the licensing authority shall be at liberty to restore the licence of the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)