IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3220 of 2010. Md.Ahmadullah S/O Late Md.Salim R/O Village- Sima,P.S.Sakri,Distt-Madhubani. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Madhubani 3. Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar,Madhubani Respondents. ------ For the petitioner : Mr. D.N.Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha AC to G.A.6. 4. 24.6.2011. Mr. D.N. Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, learned Assisting Counsel to G.A.6 appearing for the State are present. The writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questions the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani canceling the Licence granted to the petitioner under the Public Distribution System and the appellate order passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani dated 16.7.2009 in Supply Case No.58 of 2008-09 confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional officer, Sadar, Madhubani, as contained in Annexures-3 and 4 respectively. The petitioner is a licensee under the Public Distribution System having licence no.18 of 1989 and 256 of 2007 (New). On some 2 allegations said to have been made by consumers, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, inter alia, on the following charges: (1) The Notice Board showing the details of the items was not found out side the shop of the petitioner. (2) There was irregularities in the distribution of the food grains under the Antyodaya Scheme and Kerosene oil, and (3) The consumers were being supplied kerosene oil irregularly. The copy of the show cause notice dated 25.7.2010 is placed at Annexure-1. The petitioner on his part, responded to the allegations regarding non availability of the Notice Board and the alleged irregularities in the distribution of kerosene oil and food grains. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that although there were serious charges against the petitioner of irregular distribution of kerosene oil and food grains to the consumers, but no specific instances have been mentioned in the show cause notice. It is obvious that in response to such general allegation, the petitioner in his show cause reply, explained the circumstances in which the notice Board was found 3 missing and also explained that it was on account of the irregular supply of the food grains to him which resulted in irregular distribution thereof. The petitioner, in his show cause, stated that no sooner he got supply, the same was distributed to the consumers. No allegation against the petitioner, however, of misappropriating the supply or of distribution of the same in such a manner so as to obtain pecuniary advantage in contrary to the statutory provision, can be found in the show cause notice. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner gave rise to the Supply Case No.58/2008-2009. The Sub Divisional Officer, while considering the show cause reply of the petitioner, simply rejected the same as being not satisfactory and proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges and of acting in violation of Clause l7(1)(b), 4(i)(ii), 4(2) and 5(11) of the Public Distribution System (Control Order), 2001 and cancelled the licence of the petitioner. The order recorded in the proceedings was followed by a formal order as contained in Memo dated 11.8.2008 enclosed with Annexure-A to the Counter Affidavit. 4 The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Office, Sadar, Madhubani, preferred a statutory appeal before the District Magistrate, Madhubani. Although the appeal preferred by the petitioner was against the cancellation of his licence but the District Magistrate has proceeded in the matter as if the same was an appeal against the confiscation. The order also does not bear any appeal number. The District Magistrate, Madhubani although has referred to some documents placed by the petitioner in support of his contentions and the statements of other villagers who stated that their statements have not been correctly recorded but yet the District Magistrate, Madhubani simply proceeding from where the Sub Divisional Officer had left, rejected the appeal vide order dated 16.7.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a plain reading of the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Appellate Authority, manifests that the authorities have simply proceeded on the basis of the allegations set out in the charge memo placed at Annexure-1. He submits that his statements and clarifications as set out in his reply have 5 neither been discussed nor rejected, rather both the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the District Magistrate, have simply held the petitioner guilty treating the allegations as gospel. He submits that in absence of there being any specific instances of irregularities, the proceedings itself were in complete violation of the natural justice as the petitioner was being asked to respond to allegations which were general in nature. He submits that the irregularity in the Notice Board matter had been appropriately explained. Mr. Jainendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the allegations being serious in nature of non distribution of the food grains under the Antyodaya Scheme to the consumers, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly cancelled his licence and which order has rightly been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. He submits that being a case of statutory violations, the orders impugned calls for no interference. The position regarding the Notice Board having been explained, undoubtedly the charges of irregularity in distribution of the food grains and kerosene oil are serious in nature but then 6 the allegations have to be supported by specific instances with reference to individual complaints enabling the licensee to respond to the same. Such charges cannot be made in a generalised manner nor any satisfactory explanation can be given to such charges except for denial. That being the position, where the irregularities alleged in the show cause neither contains individual names nor is supported by documentary evidence rather have been set out in a general manner, I am of the opinion that a penal proceeding of the present nature can not be sustained and the orders passed have to be set aside. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhubani as contained in Anneuxre-3 as also the order dated 16.7.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority placed at Annexure-4, are quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. (Jyoti Saran,J.) ahk