IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.858 of 2011 =================== Ram Sundar Mochi, S/O late Kari Mochi, resident of village- Jokhi (Goroupur), P.s.-Lalmania, District- Madhubani. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food & Civil Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Collector, Madhubani. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Foolparas Sub-Division, District- Madhubani. . . . . . Respondents. =================== 2/ 14.07.2011 The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 18.03.2010, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas vide Memo No. 200/Supply, whereby the P.D.S. license of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner also prays for quashing the order dated 03.08.2010, passed by respondent no.2 (Collector, Madhubani) in Supply Appeal No. 09/2010-2011, whereby the order dated 18.03.2010 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas was affirmed. On the basis of enquiry report of District Supply Officer, a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the licensing authority vide Memo No.533 dated 31.08.2007, as to why his license be not cancelled. The petitioner submitted his show cause on 05.09.2007 vide Annexure-6, appended to the supplementary affidavit. Thereafter the impugned order dated 18.03.2010 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas. The petitioner aggrieved by the order of Sub- Divisional Officer, Phulparas, moved the appellate authority, namely, the Collector of the district, who too affirmed the order of 2 the licensing authority. Learned counsel submits that the very first order of licensing authority is bad in law, as it has been passed at the behest of the appellate authority. He submits that the licensing authority has not applied its own independent mind to the adjudication. In support of his submission, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision in case of Ram Swaroop Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 340. The petitioner next contends that the licensing authority or the appellate authority must give reasons and meet the grounds mentioned in the show- cause. He submits that no consideration of the grounds in the show-cause is bad in law. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon a decision reported in case of M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and other, reported in 1999(2) EFR 21. I too find that the licensing authority has passed the impugned order at the behest of the superior authority. It further appears that he has not assigned any particular reason for cancelling the license of the petitioner. The similar mistake has cropped up in the order of the appellate authority. In the circumstances, I set aside both the orders of the licensing authority as well as of the appellate authority and remit the matter to Sub-divisional officer, Phulparas to initiate a proceeding afresh after giving show-cause to the petitioner. The licensing authority would be required to take own independent 3 view in the matter. I have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. With the aforesaid direction, this application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)