IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4703 of 2006 RABINDRA NATH SAHA son of Gadadhar Saha, resident of Kashwa Toli, Panchayat Ganjan, P.O.Ganjan, P.S. Barsoi, District Katihar------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Food Supply and Commerce Department, New Secretariat, Patna 2.The District Magistrate, Katihar 3.The Sub-divisional Officer, Barsoi, District Katihar-----------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Ramesh Kr.Agrawal Anupa Nand Jha For the State :S.C.20 ---- 2. 30.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for setting the order dated 28.6.2002 passed by the S.D.O., Barsoi cancelling his PDS retail licence as well as order of Collector, Katihar dismissing the appeal for default. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would appear from the impugned order dated 28.6.2002 of the S.D.O., Barsoi that his show cause which was filed on 13.6.2002 was not considered. So far as the appellate order is concerned, learned counsel submits that the appeal was admitted on 22.11.2002 and thereafter he remained usually 2 present in court. Learned counsel states that on some of the dates he was not present and the Presiding Officer also did not hold court. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is stated in the impugned order of S.D.O., Barsoi that despite opportunity the show cause and the requisite registers were not produced before the licensing authorities. It would appear from the record that the petitioner was present on most of the dates before the appellate authority. This Court finds that the authorities should have provided one more opportunity to the petitioner to present his case. As such, this Court sets aside the impugned order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. As in any view of the matter the order of the licensing authority was passed without looking into the show cause, this Court sets aside Annexure-6 and remands the matter back to the licensing authority for fresh adjudication of the matter. 3 With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is allowed to the extent mentioned above. Spal/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J.)