IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14778 of 2006 ====================================================== Birendar Singh, son of Sri Baijnath Singh, resident of Marahiya, P.S.- Lauriya, Distt.-West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Bettiah, 3. The S.D.O., Narkatiyaganj, West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vijay Anand & Mr. Anjit Sinha, Advocates For the State : None ====================================================== 2 12-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the order of cancellation of his licence for Public Distribution System ( hereinafter referred to as “PDS”) issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order on the ground that the order has been passed mechanically and in cyclostyled format without consideration of his show-cause. It is not in controversy that the petitioner was issued show-cause notice and he has filed the same. However, it is submitted the order of cancellation has been passed in a mechanical manner in a cyclostyled format without consideration of the show-cause as even there is no brief discussion of the ground urged on behalf of the petitioner and also without disclosing any cause for rejection of the same. 2 Impugned order states mechanically that the show-cause submitted by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and devoid of any merit or substance. Thus, it is urged that the impugned order of cancellation is cryptic arbitrary and has been passed in a casual manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon catena of decisions, which were passed in identical facts and circumstances and are noted as under: (i) Order dated 03.04.2007 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7348 of 2006 by a single Bench of this Court, (ii) Order dated 04.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12433 of 2006 by a single Bench of this Court, (iii) Order dated 15.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12472 of 2006 by a single Bench of this Court, (iv) Order dated 14.07.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12584 of 2006 and its analogous cases by a single Bench of this Court, (v) Order dated 06.01.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3939 of 1989 by a Division Bench of this Court. In all the aforesaid cases this Court has held that the orders clearly indicate towards non-application of mind and have been passed in casual and mechanical manner without 3 consideration of the show-causes filed by the petitioners of those cases on the allegations made against them. Thus, in all cases the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remitted back to the concerned authorities to consider the same afresh and pass a reasoned order. Learned counsel for the State tried to support the impugned order and submitted that the same was passed after granting opportunity to show-cause to the petitioner, which was availed by him, but the decision has been taken after the authorities found the show-cause unsatisfactory. However, he could not point out from the order that there had been consideration of the grounds urged and raised in the show cause. Upon hearing the parties, there is no reason for this Court also to take a different view than the aforesaid long line of orders passed by this Court in identical circumstances. In above view of the matter, following the line of the decisions in the aforesaid cases, the impugned order passed by the authority cancelling the licence of the petitioner granted for PDS system is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed to that extent. However, the matter is remitted to the respondent-authority to reconsider the same and pass reasoned 4 order afresh with regard to the petitioner after giving opportunity of being heard to all concerned within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall be provided an opportunity of being heard on the date and time fixed by the respondent- authority for reconsideration of his show-cause. Since this order has been passed in presence of the petitioner, he is expected to appear before the concerned authority within eight weeks. It is also made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioner for resumption of supplies automatically. The same would depend upon the final decision of the authority. With the aforesaid direction and observation, this writ petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)