IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13178 of 2005 ====================================================== Gobri Miya, son of Late Kitab Miya, resident of village Dhabdhabwa, P.S. Adapur, District East Champaran .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Collector, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raxault, East Champaran 4. The Block Supply Oficer, Ada Pur, East Champaran 5. The Circle Officer, Ada Pur, East Chamapran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, AC To SC 3 ====================================================== 3 14-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.6.2005 as contained in Annexure 13 passed by the respondent no. 3, the Sub Divisional Officer, Raxaul, whereby his license for running a public distribution system shop, which was earlier suspended, has been finally cancelled. Despite liberty being granted to the State on 13.6.2006 itself and thereafter again on 15.11.2011 for filing counter affidavit the same has not been filed. In above view of this matter, this application is being considered even in the absence of any counter affidavit having been filed on behalf of the State. At the time of hearing of this application a sole ground 2 that has been raised by the petitioner is that he has filed show cause prior to passing of Annexure 4. However, thereafter while suspending the licence of the petitioner again the petitioner was directed to submit a show cause. The petitioner submitted the same once again. A copy of the show cause is appended as Annexure 12. However, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind and without considering the grounds raised in the show cause filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the State is not in a position to controvert the same, however, he submits that the petitioner ought to have challenged this order in appeal. However, in view of the fact that this writ application has been filed in the year 2005 and has remain pending for six years, it would not be proper to relegate the petitioner again to the appellate authority specially in view of the order which I propose to pass in this writ application. By now it is well settled that any order passed by the authority visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order being challenged, would not be in a position to know the reason which led the authority in passing the order. 3 Reference is made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1999(1) B.L.J. 548 and, thereafter, long line of decisions of this Court including one in C.W.J.C. No. 12675/2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and its analogous cases. This Court has already held that if the licensing authority has passed the order cancelling the licence without considering the show cause, it would be very difficult to sustain such order. In the present case also it is apparent from the impugned order dated 29.6.2005 (Annexure 13) that it lacks even a brief discussion of the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and, thus, appears to have been passed in mechanical manner. As such, it cannot be sustained in present form and, accordingly, the same is quashed and this writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The matter is remitted back to the licensing authority to decide the case afresh after consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. Since the order is being passed in the presence of the petitioner, it is expected that he would move before the licensing authority within six weeks failing which the authority 4 concerned would be at liberty to pass appropriate order after consideration of the show cause even in the absence of the petitioner. It is also made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioner for resumption of supplies automatically as the same would depend upon the fate of the petitioner’s case. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)