IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6896 of 2007 MD. FAHIM @ FAHIMUDDIN son of Abdul Qaum @ Qaummuddin, Resident of Saharsa Basti, P.S. and District Saharsa. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Ministry of Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs, through its Secretary, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. Commissioner, Koshi Range, Saharsa. 3. District Magistrate, Saharsa. 4. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharsa. 5. Supply Inspector, Saharsa. . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 15.02.2010 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was granted P.D.S. dealership of Ward no. 20 of urban area, Saharsa. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled on 13.01.1997. The petitioner submits that he met an accident at Railway Crossing, for which he also filed a claim for compensation. As petitioner sustained grievous injuries in accident, the licensing authority restored his licence vide Memo no. 1144-2 dated 18.08.1998 (Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa). Thereafter the supply of items to the petitioner continued as usual. Learned counsel is aggrieved by Memo no. 1515-2 dated 02.11.1998, whereby the licensing authority (Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa) again cancelled his licence at the directives of the District Magistrate, Saharsa. Learned counsel submits that he filed an appeal before the Collector, Saharsa as well as Commissioner, Koshi Range, Saharsa, which were too dismissed. The petitioner states that the only charge levelled against him was of not lifting the allotted foodgrains quota. Learned counsel - 2 - submits that no show-cause was issued to him. Learned counsel for the State submits that in absence of the regular licensing authority, Executive Magistrate was discharging the function of the licensing authority, as such he did not have any power to restore the licence, which was cancelled by the regular licensing authority. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and the orders passed by the Collector, Saharsa as well as by Commissioner, Koshi Range, Saharasa and remit the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa to pass fresh order in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. With the aforesaid observation, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned therein. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)