IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7345 of 2006 BIRENDRA KUMAR, S/O- SRI DWARIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MAHARAJGANJ, P.S. RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD :---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE S.D.O., AURANGABAD SADAR, AURANGABAD. 3. LABOUR INSPECTOR, AURANGABAD, RAFIGANJ I & II :-- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 15.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner is a P.D.S. licensee bearing no. 10/R/86. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order dated 25.05.2006, Annexure-3, whereunder aforesaid licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of irregularities committed by him in distribution of the essential commodities to the various consumers attached to his shop. Earlier petitioner was served with the notice bearing Memo No. 359 dated 15.04.2006, Annexure-1 asking him to show-cause as to why his licence be not cancelled in the light of the report of the Labour Inspector dated 11.04.2006. In response to the aforesaid show-cause petitioner filed his show-cause reply, Annexure-2 disputing the allegations made in the report dated 11.4.2006. By the impugned order the 2 Licensing Authority has cancelled the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner on the ground that various consumers, namely, Most. Uma Devi, Dwarika Prasad, Shiv Lal Chauhan, Rajendra Chauhan, Jagdish Yadav and others alleged against the petitioner that he violated the terms of the licence and deprived them of the essential commodities by selling those commodities in black market. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without giving the petitioner opportunity to cross- examine the aforesaid consumers named in the impugned order who have alleged against him that he violated the terms of the licence and sold the essential commodities meant to be given to them in the black market the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is also submitted that even the names of the consumers was not indicated in the show-cause notice, as such, petitioner had no opportunity at all to defend himself. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2006, Annexure-3 and remit back the matter to 3 the Licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Aurangabad to reconsider the matter and if he wishes to proceed against the petitioner, to produce the aforesaid consumers named in his order for cross-examination by the petitioner and to pass fresh order in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Licensing Authority. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. ( V.N.Sinha, J.)