IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6624 of 2008 Shiv Chaupal, son of Late Yugeshwar Chaupal, village Simari, PS Ghanshyampur, Dist. Darbhanga – Petitioner. Vs. 1) the State of Bihar, 2) The Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 4) The Dist. Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5) The Subdivisional Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga. 6) The Block Dev. Officer, Kiratpur, PS Ghanshaympur, Dist. Darbhanga. 7) The Anchal Adhikari, Kiratpur, PS Ghanshaympur, Dist. Darbhanga. 8) The Block Supply Officer, Kiratpur, PS Ghanshaympur, Dist. Darbhanga. 3 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. There were two allegations against the petitioner as per Annexure 5. It is said that he had closed the shop for one day and that no information regarding the stock was available in his shop. Subsequent to that an enquiry was made on 8.9.2006 and the order of suspension was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a show cause and his license was cancelled vide Annexure 10. In the show cause the petitioner has stated that he had closed his shop for part of the day as he had gone to pick up the food grains etc. from the godown. He also states that as far as the display of the stock is concerned, it appeared that it had been rubbed of. The submission is that these two allegations against the petitioner do not show any deliberate attempt on his part to flout the provisions of the license, in such a manner as to lead to cancellation of the license. The orders as contained in Annexures 10 and 11 refer to inspection report contained in Annexure 6, dated 8.9.2006. It does not appear from the order impugned that the inspection report was 2 supplied to the petitioner along with the show cause so that he could reply to the allegations as contained in the inspection note. Even otherwise it would appear that there was no discrepancy in the stock. The allegation against the petitioner which transpired from the inspection note is that he had not distributed the entire stock as required under the law. This court finds that if the petitioner has to answer the allegations leveled against him, the enquiry report (inspection note) ought to have been supplied to him along with the copy of the show cause so that he could have explained the allegations contained therein. In the circumstances aforesaid this court directs that the Subdivisional Officer, Biraul should issue a fresh show cause to the petitioner along with the inspection note so that the petitioner can file a proper reply and prove that the allegations as contained in the inspection note are false. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Subdivisional Officer within one month from today who should thereafter issue a show cause along with the materials that have been gathered against the petitioner so that he can give an effective reply to the show cause and dispose of the matter expeditiously. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)