IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5155 of 2009 Bhrigunath Sah, son of Shri Jhalu Sah, village Baijnathpur, PS Bettiah (M), Dist. West Champaran – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3) The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4) The Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar. 5) The Block Supply Officer, Bettiah Block, Bettiah – Respondents. 4 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged Annexure 3, the order passed by the Subdivisional Sadar, Bettiah by which his license under the public distribution system has been cancelled on 24.7.2000 and the order of the Collector, dated 28.7.2008 passed in C.R.M. Case No. 58/2000-01. The petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer. He received a notice, dated 6.3.2000 by which he was asked to deposit his registers and documents etc. before the Block Supply Officer. After that, Annexure 2 was issued alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated wheat and rice the cost of which was calculated at Rs.5832/- and Rs.4864/- respectively. It was alleged that the petitioner has not distributed the sugar and had not supplied food grains to the red card holders. The petitioner was asked to file his show cause. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not file any show cause in this matter. Finally an order was passed by the Subdivisional Officer cancelling his license on the ground that he was not able to substantiate that the allegations leveled against him was forged and untrue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not in a position to file his show cause for the reason that all the 2 documents and registers showing the supply of stock and distribution of stock was with the Block Supply Officer and as such he could not examine the records to show that the allegations leveled against him were forged. In the opinion of the court, the stand of the petitioner is quite justified as obviously the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to look into the records and file a reply. I may also point out that after the stock, supply and distribution registers were deposited by the petitioner, physical verification ought to have been made by the authorities concerned which may have substantiated the allegations leveled against the petitioner. In the circumstances this court finds that the orders impugned have to be quashed on the ground mentioned aforesaid. The Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar is directed to supply registers etc. which were deposited with the Block Supply Officer / Subdivisional Officer, Sadar Bettiah, to the petitioner, who will then file a show cause which should be considered by the Subdivisional Officer within three months on receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order and file an application for supply of the documents before the Subdivisional Officer, Bettiah stating specifically the documents which had been deposited by him with the Block Supply Officer within one month on receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)