IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 RAM UDAY SINGH son of Chandraketu Prasad Singh, resident of village Adarsh Gram, P.O. Tikrampur, P.S. Muffasil, District Munger – … … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. The Collector, Munger, 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Munger, … Respondents with C.W.J.C. No.12736 of 2006 MD.AFTAB ALAM - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12772 of 2006 LAL BAHADUR YADAV - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12785 of 2006 MANAGER SAH - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12820 of 2006 RAJDEO THAKUR - Petitioners Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12854 of 2006 BRAJENDRA KUMAR CHOUBEY - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12869 of 2006 MUNNILAL PASWAN - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12878 of 2006 DHRUP SINGH - Petitioner 2 Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 13044 of 2006 SAHDEO MANJHI - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 13082 of 2006 SATYA NARAYAN MAHTO - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 13487 of 2006 SUBHASH KUMAR - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 13493 of 2006 MD. SAHABUDDIN - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents with C.W.J.C. No. 12833 of 2006 SANJEEVAN KUMAR - Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondents For the Petitioners : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with M/s. D.N. Tiwari & Vijay Anand, Advocates For the State : AAG- I, AAG- II, AAG-VII, GP-14, GP-15, GP-16, GP-17, GP-18, GP-20, GP-21, SC-V, SC-XI Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC VIII Mr. Ravi Varma, AC to GP 12 … 3 11.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners 3 challenge the orders of cancellation of their licences for Public Distribution System (hereinafter referred to as “PDS”) issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order on the common ground that the orders have been passed mechanically and in cyclostyled format without consideration of their respective show-cause. Thus, all these cases have been considered together and are being disposed of by this common order. It is not in controversy that the petitioners were issued show-cause notices and they have filed the same. However, it is a common ground in all the cases that 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 grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners and also without disclosing any cause for rejection of the same. Impugned orders state mechanically that the show-causes submitted by the petitioners were found to be unsatisfactory and devoid of any merit or substance. Thus, it is urged that the impugned orders of cancellation are casual, cryptic arbitrary and have been passed in casual manner. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed 4 reliance upon catena of decisions, which were passed under identical facts and circumstances and in some cases under the same type of cyclostyled format and in some cases even on the same date. Learned counsel have filed some copies of the orders passed by the single Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court, which 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 consideration of the show-causes filed by 5 the petitioners 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 orders and submitted that the same were passed after granting opportunity to show-cause to the petitioners, which were availed by them, but the decisions have been taken after the authorities found the show-causes unsatisfactory. However, he could not point out from the orders that there had been consideration of the grounds urged and raised in the show-cause. So far C.W.J.C. No. 12833 of 2006 is concerned, though the reason for cancellation has been given in column no. 7 of the impugned order, which is appended as Annexure 1, however, it does not appear that there is any consideration of either the grounds raised by the petitioner or the details regarding specific rules etc., which were violated by the authorities while granting licence to the petitioner. The impugned order also seems to have been passed in mechanical manner in a printed format which indicates towards non-application of mind. 6 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 orders passed by the authorities cancelling the licences of the petitioners granted for PDS are hereby quashed and all the writ petitions are allowed to that extent. However, the matter is remitted to the respondent-authority to reconsider the same and pass reasoned orders afresh with regard to the petitioners in each case 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 petitioners shall be provided an opportunity of being heard on the date and time fixed by the respondent-authority for reconsideration of their show-causes. Since this order has been passed in presence of the petitioners, they are expected to appear before the concerned authority within eight weeks. It is also made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioners for resumption of supplies automatically. The same would depend upon the final decision of the authority 7 in each case. With the aforesaid direction and observation, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)