IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1071 of 2007 SUSHIL KUMAR SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Mukund, Advocate For the Respondents : Standing Counsel No. XVIII. ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----- Dated, the 18th July, 2008. The counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was not notified specifically aboutthe alleged irregularities committed by him. He would submit that on the date the spot inspection was done, the appellant was ill and, therefore, the shop was closed. The counsel would submit that the appellant has been granted fair price shop dealership in the year 1992 and has been, without blemish, running the said fair price shop until the impugned order came to be passed. He would, thus submit that the dismissal of the writ petition by the Single Judge cannot be justified. 2. We are afraid, the submission of the counsel for the appellant does not deserve to be accepted. It transpires that upon receipt of the spot enquiry report dated 6th January, 2001 from the Assistant District Supply Officer, a notice to show cause was given to the appellant calling upon his explanation with regard to the various 2 irregularities found in the fair price shop run by him. Along with the show cause notice, copy of spot enquiry report was annexed. The appellant responded to the show cause notice which was considered by the licencing authority and since no satisfactory explanation was found, the licence of fair price shop granted to the appellant was cancelled. The appeal was preferred by the appellant before the appellate authority who after hearing the appellant, dismissed the appeal. 3. It would be, thus, seen that there is no merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was not noticed of the alleged irregularities. Copy of the spot enquiry report was furnished to the appellant along with the show cause notice which indicated the irregularities complained against the appellant. 4. Since principles of natural justice have not been violated in cancellation of the appellant’s licence, we find no justification in interfering with the order of the Single Judge. 5. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/