IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13360 of 2005 RAM JATAN PRASAD @ MILAN BABU son of late Jagdish Prasad Yadav, resident of Village P.O. Kaliachak Makdhdumpur, P.S. Hilsa, District Nalanda-petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector Nalanda 2.Collector, Nalanda 3.Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda 4.District Rationing Officer, Nalanda 5.Assistant District Rationing Officer, Hilsa Nalanda--------------------------------respondents ----------- 3. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 17.8.2005 passed by the Collector, Nalanda in Supply Case No. 30/2003 affirming the order dated 26.4.2003 passed by the S.D.O., Hilsa cancelling the petitioner’s licence bearing No.30/84. The petitioner is a retail licensee under the P.D.S. system. The licensing officer after giving an opportunity of hearing has cancelled the licence on the ground that he used to run the P.D.S. shop in his house itself and not in the assigned place and secondly he sold some of the items on higher rates. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of the S.D.O. and the consequent order of the appellate authority on the ground that they have 2 committed an error of record. Learned counsel submits that the S.D.O. in his order has observed that the petitioner has not made available the cash memo and the distribution register. Learned counsel submits that it would appear from the show cause that he has annexed those documents. Copy of the show cause has been annexed as Annexure-3. The order of the S.D.O. has proceeded on the assumption that certain documents called by him were not supplied whereas the petitioner has asserted by referring to his show cause that the same was duly filed. In view of such assertion made by the petitioner this Court finds that another opportunity should be given to him to satisfy the licensing officer that he had not committed any illegality under the terms and conditions of the licence or under any other provisions of law. In view of the above, in case the petitioner files a representation before the licensing officer he would hear him afresh and pass order in accordance with law preferably 3 within a period of six months from the date of filing of such representation. The impugned order challenged here would be subject to the result of the fresh order passed by the licensing officer after providing an opportunity of hearing. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.) Spal/