IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12227 of 2007 AMRENDRA RAY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 18.1.2010 In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 16.8.2007 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Uda Kishanganj, Madhepura by which he has cancelled the license of Public Distribution Shop, Kursandi granted in favour of the petitioner. It appears from the impugned order that the petitioner committed breach of condition of his licence and other irregularities. The petitioner states that one Rabindra Rai, who is own brother of the petitioner and having inimical term with him, had lodged a complaint stating therein that one Mansoor Mian was carrying 40 kgs of wheat from his shop which was meant to be distributed under the Public Distribution System to the card holders. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, an equiry was conducted by the Block Supply Officer, in which Mansoor Mian denied of having lifted the 40 Kgs of wheat from the shop of the petitioner. On the other hand, he stated that he purchased the same from Madhaili Bazar. However, the Subdivisional Officer pursuant to the enquiry report vide his memo no.194 dated 11.7.2007 rejected the explanation submitted by the petitioner and suspended his licence. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner filed another explanation which was not accepted in view of the various breach of the conditions of licence. He submits that against the impugned order the 2 KHAN petitioner would have moved in appeal before the Collector under clause 28 of the Unification Order. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that the shop was inspected on 23.3.2007 when the dealers were on strike. He submits that the impugned order dated 16.8.2007, contained in Annexure-10, has been passed by the S.D.O. Uda Kishunganj without issuing proposed show cause for cancellation. Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 mandates that no licence can be cancelled before giving reasonable opportunity against proposed cancellation of the same. As the impugned order has been passed without providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner against proposed cancellation of his licence as provided under clause 11(2) of the Unification Order, 1984, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the licensing authority for deciding the matter afresh after giving necessary show cause under clause 11(2) of the Unification Order, 1984. In the result, this application is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)