IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6066 of 2006 BALESHWAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 27.10.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 3.3.2006 passed by Commissioner, Saran in Supply Revision Case No.8/2001-2002 as well as orders dated 30.3.2001 and 18.7.2000 passed by the Collector, Saran and the S.D.O., Marhaura canceling the retail cum Fair Price Shop dealership under public distribution system. On 24.6.2000 the S.D.O., Marhaura, Saran suspended the licence of the petitioner on the allegation that 1.75 quintal of sugar was lifted on 20.6.2000 from Bihar State Food Corporation, Chapra and was sold in black market. The petitioner was also show caused as to why his licence be not cancelled. The petitioner filed his show cause vide Annexure-2. Annexure-3 is a report of the Supply Inspector, Marhaura, stating therein that the petitioner had not distributed sugar and kerosene oil to his customers in the month of May and June,2000. After receipt of the report, the S.D.O., Marhaura cancelled the licence. The petitioner preferred appeal and revision which were too dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the S.D.O., Marhaura could not have suspended the licence without issuing show cause and as such the entire proceeding is null and void. In support of his 2 submission, the learned counsel referred to the circular issued by the State Government vide Letter No.4624 dated 4.11.1994. It would appear from the aforesaid Circular that the Government has taken a decision that licence of a P.D.S. dealer should not be suspended without seeking a show cause. He further submits that it would appear from the order dated 24.6.2000 suspending the licence as well as the order dated 11.7.2000 and the order dated 18.7.2000 cancelling the licence, that the petitioner lifted the quota of the month of March in June,24.6.2000. As such there was no question of distributing the trade articles in the month of May and June,2006. He further submits that no opportunity was given. Learned counsel for the State submits that by order dated 24.6.2000, the S.D.O., Marhaura while suspending the licence asked show cause as to why licence be not cancelled. He further submits that in view of the materials available on record, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional court. Bihar Trade Articles ( Licence Unification) Order, 1984 provides for suspension and cancellation of licence. Section 11 (2) mandates that a licence cannot be cancelled unless the dealer has been given a reasonable opportunity to put his case against proposed cancellation. Sub-clause (2) further provides that a licence can be suspended in contemplation of proceeding for cancellation of licence upto a maximum period of 90 days, even without giving a show cause or notice. However, principle of natural justice would 3 come into play if licence is sought to be cancelled. It also follows that the suspension of a licence would automatically become nonest if no show cause is issued within a period of 90 days. Thus, it is not mandatory to issue notice before suspending the licence of a dealer. So far as the second submission that as petitioner lifted the quota of March in the month of June itself, she could not have made supply of items in the month of May and June, needs enquiry. The S.D.O., Marhaura, would give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the circumstance as to why he was not in a position to distribute the trade articles in the month of May and June. The petitioner may file all necessary documents in support of his defence. The impugned order passed by the three authorities would be subject to order of the S.D.O., Marhaura. With the aforesaid direction this writ application is disposed of. Anilkrsinha (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)