IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16554 of 2009 ***** 1. M/S Nutan Krishak Sewa Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Mitaha Road, Motihari, through its Proprietor Smt. Bibha Karamkar, Wife of Sri Tapas Kumar, Resident of Station Road, Belwanba, P.S. Motihari Town, District East Champaran. 2. M/s Annpurna Krishak Sewa Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Station Road, Motihari through its Proprietor Sri Bhagwan Prasad Rai, son of Sukhdeo Rai, resident of Majhatia, P.S. Turkaulia, District East Champaran. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Agriculture Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. D.N.Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate-III ---------- 2. 1.12.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The two petitioners were valid license-holders under the Fertilizer Control Order for being in the trade of wholesale on the basis of appointments made by two companies, namely, IFFCO and KRIVCO. The licenses have been renewed from time to time and they are still valid and subsist before the impugned order came to be passed contained in Anenxure-1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the orders seem to have been passed by the District Agriculture Officer, East Champaran, Motihari without following the principles of natural justice that is by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without fully applying oneself to the given facts that the licenses issued to the petitioners have endorsement at the back of the license which shows that they were dealing with two companies and were allowed to do so. Merely because the IFFCO has unilaterally withdrawn their authorization upon the petitioners to deal with their product, the entire - 2 - licenses cannot be annulled or cancelled. A Xerox copy of the license has been produced before this Court, which bears the submissions which have been made at the bar about the endorsements of two companies with whom the petitioners have relationship and have authority to deal. Even if the IFFCO withdraws this authorization, petitioners will continue to deal with the product of KRIVCO as to why the entire licenses has been cancelled or annulled is not understood from the perusal of the impugned order contained in Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the State seeks time to file a counter affidavit in the matter but the Court is of the opinion that no purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending. The writ application stands disposed of with a direction upon the District Agriculture Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, respondent no.2, to hear the petitioners who shall appear before him on 14th of December, 2009 at 11 AM. The respondent no.2 shall either hear the petitioners on the same date or any other date mutually agreeable between the parties and thereafter pass a fresh order if need be in the matter. So far as the impugned order is concerned, till decision is rendered by the respondent no.2 the order shall not come in the way of the petitioners dealing with KRIVCO products on the basis of the license, if there is no other impediment in the way. This writ application stands disposed of with above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)