IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17301 of 2010 1. Ramawatar Singh S/O Late Uchitlal Singh R/O Vill. And P.O.- Balaha, P.S.- Bihpur, Distt.- Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Food And Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Navgachhia, Distt.- Bhagalpur ----------- 3 16.11.2011 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, learned A.C. to S.C.11 for the State. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 30.09.2010 bearing memo no.845 dated 30.3.2010, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Navgachhiya, whereby the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled in purported exercise of powers vested under the provisions of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order’) as notified vide GSR-01/ dated 20.2.2007. The facts of the case is not in dispute. The petitioner is a licensed dealer under the provisions of the Order bearing Licence No.02/1991. On the basis of certain complaints, the fair price shop of the petitioner was jointly inspected by the Block Development Officer, Narayanpur/ the Circle Officer, Narayanpur and the Supply Inspector, Narayanpur and on the basis of their joint report, the Sub Divisional Officer, Navgachhiya, by the impugned order dated 30.9.2010 has proceeded to cancel the licence of the petitioner granted under ‘the Order’. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a very short submission. It is contended that whereas Clause 7(iv) of the Order very 2 specifically casts an obligation on the Licensing Authority being the Sub Divisional Officer, Navgachhiya in the present case, to ask for a show cause and to give a reasonable opportunity to the dealer to present his case before passing an order of cancellation, but no such steps were taken by the respondent Licensing Authority, thus vitiating the impugned order. The statement to this effect has been made in paragraph-7 of the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 who does not controvert the statement of the petitioner regarding denial of reasonable opportunity before the proposed cancellation. In the aforesaid view of the matter, where the position regarding the denial of opportunity to the petitioner of defending his case against the proposed cancellation on the basis of the charges set out against him, is not disputed, the order impugned having been issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Clause 7(iv) of the ‘the Order’ cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)