IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7389 of 2006 SURENDRA PRASAD, SON OF LATE SARJU PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MATAHA, P.O.- PIPARA, GRAM PANCHAYAT KOLHUWAR, P.S. DUMRIA, DISTRICT- GAYA :--PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHERGHATI, GAYA. 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER CUM BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DUMARIA, GAYA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 18.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, also perused the counter affidavit and the report annexed therewith dated 01.02.2006, Annexure-A. 2. Petitioner is a P.D.S. licensee bearing Licence No. 5/85. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order bearing Memo No. 22 dated 10.5.2006, Annexure-7, whereunder his aforesaid licence has been cancelled as the cause shown by him pursuant to notice dated 17.02.2006, Annexure-1 vide show-cause reply dated 21.02.2006, Annexure-2 was not found satisfactory. Under notice dated 17.02.2006, Annexure-1 petitioner was asked to show-cause by 21.2.2006 as to why his aforesaid licence be not cancelled on the ground that the consumers attached to his shop Sudesh Kumar, son of Kuldeep Mahto and others have reported against him. Having received the said notice petitioner disputed the allegation set out in the aforesaid notice by filing reply dated 21.02.2006. Perusal of reply dated 21.02.2006 indicates that petitioner categorically stated that he has been supplying the essential commodities to the consumers attached to his shop and desired that the 2 allegationists be made available for being cross-examined by him so as to enable him to disprove the allegation that he is not supplying the essential commodities to the consumers attached to the shop. Inspite of aforesaid assertion made by the petitioner neither the Licensing Authority nor the Enquiry Officer made available the allegationists for being cross- examined by the petitioner and by passing cryptic order dated 10.05.2006, Annexure-7 the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. By filing counter affidavit authorities have supported the impugned order by relying on the contents of the report dated 07.01.2006 of the Revenue Karmchari. In support of the report dated 07.01.2006 the Revenue Karmchari relied on the statement of 13 consumers attached to the shop of the petitioner who confirmed the allegation before him during the enquiry held on 06.01.2006. The P.D.S. licence of the petitioner was cancelled in the light of the report of the Revenue Karmchari which was forwarded by the Block Supply Officer-cum-Block Development Officer to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya, the Licensing Authority under Letter No. 12 dated 01.02.2006 and relying on the said report the Licensing Authority passed the impugned order dated 10.5.2006, Annexure-7 cancelling the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner. The consumers examined by the Revenue Karmchari on 06.01.2006 were never made available for being cross-examined by the petitioner, in the circumstances, reliance could not have been placed by the authorities over their statement as placing reliance over their statement in my 3 opinion amounts to infracting principles of natural justice. 4. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 10.05.2006, Annexure-7 and remit back the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sherghati. In the event Sub-Divisional Officer is of the view that the matter is required to be pursued further, he should make available the consumers examined by the Revenue Karmchari on 06.01.2006 for being cross- examined by the petitioner and if the witnesses are able to withstand the cross-examination made by the petitioner, it shall be open for the Licensing Authority to again pass the order maintaining the order cancelling the licence of the petitioner. In the event the consumers who alleged against the petitioner on 06.01.2006 are not available for their cross- examination or if they are not able to withstand the cross- examination and ultimately petitioner is able to disprove the allegations levelled by them, the licence of the petitioner be restored. Appropriate orders in compliance of this order be passed as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Licensing Authority. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)