IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7139 of 2006 Pankaj Kumar, son of Ram Naresh Prasad, resident of village Gararia Bigha, P.O. Karjara, Police Station Ben, District Nalanda ….. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir (Nalanda). 4. Circle Officer, Ben (Nalanda) …. … Respondents ----------- 03/ 13.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a PDS licensee. His Licence Number is 6/97. This writ petition has been filed questioning the order, bearing Memo No. 1448 dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-3, whereunder Licensing Authority has cancelled the aforesaid PDS licence of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that aforesaid cancellation order has been passed without considering his show cause reply dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-2. In this connection, it is pointed out that notice, bearing Memo No. 1417 dated 24.4.2006, Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to file his reply by 25.4.2006. It is further submitted that aforesaid direction to file reply 2 within 24 hours is wholly arbitrary, nonetheless, petitioner complied with such arbitrary direction of the Licensing Authority, as he had to save his livelihood by filing reply dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-2. 4. It appears, without considering the aforesaid reply, the impugned order dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-3 has been passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Perusal of the order dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-3 indicates that the same has been passed in compliance of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 196 of 2001 dated 2.5.2003. Having perused the impugned order dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-3, I am satisfied that the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to defend himself as cause shown by him dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-2 has not been considered purportedly on the ground that the same was received on 26.4.2006, but while making such statement in the counter affidavit, the deponent of the counter affidavit has not controverted the receipt granted on the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner dated 25.4.2006, even otherwise 24 hours time is not reasonable time for 3 filing show cause reply. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.4.2006, Annexure-3 is set aside granting liberty to the Licensing Authority to proceed in the matter, provided the consumers named in the order are made available for being cross-examined by the petitioner. In case, the Licensing Authority is not inclined to proceed with the matter, he should proceed to restore the licence of the petitioner within a reasonable time not exceeding two months. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)