IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10634 of 2009 ====================================================== SATYANARAYAN SINGH, SON OF LATE GANGA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR, POST OFFICE LALPUR, POLICE STATION CHHATAPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TRIVENIGANJ, DISTRICT SUPAUL .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shree Kant Labh . Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp22) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN) 4 16-12-2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2009 by which the show cause of the petitioner has been rejected and his licence as a Public Distribution System Dealer has been cancelled. On 11.07.2008, the petitioner was issued a show cause in which it has been alleged that the petitioner had not displayed the value of the articles and the stock in his shop on the Display Board, the distribution register and the cash memo did not tally, that on 04.08.2008 while distributing the articles, Patna High Court CWJC No.10634 of 2009 (4) dt.16-12-2011 2 / 3 2 the signature/thumb impression of several persons were not found in the register and that the stock of the Kerosene Oil did not tally with the amount distributed. The petitioner was given 24-hours to file his show cause. Despite the fact that this Court finds that 24-hour is not sufficient, the petitioner filed his show cause which is contained in Annexure-3. In the show cause, the petitioner has specifically stated that the allegations are false. It is stated that on the day of inspection, the petitioner was distributing Kerosene Oil. It has been specifically stated that there were crowd of several persons on the day of inspection. They gathered near the Display Board and it could be that chalk marks have been rubbed of due to the crowd that had gathered at the shop. Since, the inspection team had reached at the time when he was distributing Kerosene Oil, the petitioner was able to make certain entries and issue cash memo but at the same time, he could not take the signatures/thumb impressions of all those persons because of the presence of the inspecting team and under such circumstances, there appears to be the defects as pointed out. The Sub Divisional Officer without considering whether the explanation is feasible or not has rejected it in one line stating that the show cause is not acceptable. Such a cryptic Patna High Court CWJC No.10634 of 2009 (4) dt.16-12-2011 3 / 3 3 order cannot be sustained before any Court of Law. In the result, I quash memo no. 186 dated 13.02.2009 and remand the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Triveniganj to adjudicate on the issues raised within the shortest possible time preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Sub Divisional Officer, Triveniganj. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)