IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1086 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2961 of 2010 ====================================================== Surendra Choudhary, S/o Sitaram Choudhary, R/o Village-Jalalpur, P.O.- Khanpura, P.S.-Giriyak, District-Nalanda. …. …. Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 3. Additional Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir, Nalanda. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Navendu Kumar, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anant Kumar, A.C. to AAG 2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 19-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13th May 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2961 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant is a dealer appointed under the Public Distribution System. In view of the certain irregularities committed by the appellant, his licence came to be cancelled on 7th April 2005. The challenge to the said order in appeal before the District Collector, Nalanda was rejected by order dated 31st July 2009. The challenge to the said order in above CWJC No. 2961 of 2010 has failed. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Navendu Kumar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that Clause 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 contemplates Patna High Court LPA No.1086 of 2011 (2) dt.19-08-2011 2 / 3 2 reasonable opportunity of hearing to the licensee before the licence issued under the said order is cancelled. Mr. Navendu Kumar concedes the appellant was given opportunity to file defence statement and opportunity of hearing. He however submits that the appellant was not supplied the materials relied upon by the respondents and opportunity to meet with the said materials. In support of his submission, Mr. Navendu Kumar has relied upon the order of cancellation of licence dated 5th April 2005 (Annexure-5 to the memo of Appeal). He has submitted that while making the order, apart from the initial report made against the appellant, further report was called for and relied upon by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgir. The said materials procured by the Sub Divisional officer were neither supplied to the appellant nor appellant was given opportunity to meet such report. Thus, the impugned order of cancellation of licence cannot be said to have been made after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We have perused the record. It appears that on the receipt of complaints against the malfunctioning of the fair price shop, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The appellant was called upon to explain his conduct. After receiving the explanation from the appellant, registers were called for. On examination of the registers, under communication dated 27th November 2004, a notice was issued upon the appellant to show cause as to why for the reasons recorded therein, licence granted to the appellant should not be cancelled. Pending the proceeding his licence was suspended. The said notice was replied to by the appellant on 8.12.2004. After receipt of the said reply, the impugned order was made on 5th April 2005. Thus, it appears that the impugned order was made pursuant to the reply submitted by Patna High Court LPA No.1086 of 2011 (2) dt.19-08-2011 3 / 3 3 the appellant on 8th December 2004 and the registers were produced by him. The said registers were examined by the Incharge Supply Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate. On the report submitted by the Incharge Supply Officer and the irregularities indicated in the said report were noted by the Sub Divisional Officer who cancelled the licence granted to the appellant. It is indisputable that the report submitted by the Incharge Supply Officer on 17th March 2005 and the irregularities committed by the appellant, were the basis for cancellation of licence. Indisputably, the said report was neither supplied to the appellant nor was he called upon to explain the irregularities noted in the said report. To that extent, we do find infirmity in the impugned order of cancellation of licence. However, in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, we would not interfere with the order of cancellation of licence because earlier the appellant had been given opportunity to meet with the allegations made against him. The irregularities found in the earlier report have been reiterated in the latter report dated 17th March 2005. In above view of the matter, the appellant had the sufficient opportunity to meet with the allegations made against him as in the latter report nothing new was found against the appellant. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)