IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16293 of 2007 HARI NANDAN SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 12.05.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.5.2006 cancelling public distribution system licence of the petitioner as affirmed in Appeal on 16.4. 2007 in Misc. case No. 25 of 2006 passed by the Collector- cum-District Magistrate, Begusarai. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to await a counter affidavit. The public distribution system licence of the petitioner for the alleged irregularity was suspended on 24.11.2004. It appears that a report was then submitted on 20.1.2006 by the Block Development Officer that the stocks received by the petitioner prior to the suspension had been distributed and his stock registers etc. were found in order recommending the revocation of the suspension order. In pursuance of the recommendation dated 20.1.2006 that his stock registers were in order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.3.2006 that his stock registers were examined by the Block Supply Inspector, who had pointed out certain irregularities in the maintenance of the stock registers. The petitioner submitted his reply, in pursuance thereof the impugned order of cancellation dated 29.5.2006 came to be passed as upheld by the appellate order dated 16.4.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the third paragraph - 2 - of the appellate order to submit that the ground of the alleged irregularities pointed out by the Block Supply Inspector on which show cause notice dated 24.3.2006 was issued, was never made known to the petitioner, as has been noticed by the appellate authority themselves. The submission, therefore, is that in absence of the same, the entire proceedings, order of cancellation, rejection of the appeal are vitiated. Counsel for the State referred to the orders impugned to submit that the petitioner had himself acknowledged that there had been omissions in the maintenance of the registers. This Court is satisfied from the recital in the appellate order itself that the grounds on which the show cause was based were not disclosed to the petitioner. He, therefore, did not have the opportunity to know the case that he had to meet. The fact that he may have submitted a reply to the show cause does not persuade this Court to uphold the illegality in decision making process. In the result, the impugned order dated 29.5.2006 and the appellate order dated 16.4.2007 are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Licensing Authority to serve a fresh show cause notice on the petitioner disclosing the grounds of illegality as pointed out by the Block Supply Inspector, whereafter the petitioner shall file his reply to the show cause when the matter shall proceed in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed with the observation as above. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)