IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5017 of 2008 Naujadik Singh S/o late Ram Kewal Singh R/o village- Saransi, P.S.- Risiup, District- Aurangabad--------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Food Supply & Commerce, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Food, Supply & Commerce, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, P.S. & Distt.- Aurangabad 4. the S.D.I. Aurangabad )Town) P.S. & Distt.- Aurangabad 5. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, P.S. & Distt.- Aurangabad 6. The Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad PS & Distt.- Aurangabad 7. The supply Inspector Kutumba, PS- Kutumba, Distt- Aurangabad --------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha no.4Advocate Mr. Ramvijay Narain Singh, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Ragiv Singh G.P.-15 ---------------------------- 5 9.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by the S.D.O. and the order dated 14.9.2006 passed by the District Magistrate of Aurangabad by which the license of the petitioner under Public Distribution System has been cancelled. The petitioner was issued a show cause vide Annexure-4 wherein there are certain allegations levelled against him. The show cause issued to the petitioner specifically stated that the petitioner should file a show cause as to why his license should not be suspended. Subsequent to that the S.D.O. cancelled the license of the petitioner without giving him reasonable opportunity and following the procedure as laid down under Clause 11 (2) of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision in the case of Paspat Prasad @ Raghunath Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & others (2011 (2) PLJR 698) on the subject wherein the Court has held that the license cannot be cancelled without following the procedure under Clause 11 (2) of the Unification Order of 1984. Considering the aforesaid decision the impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded back to S.D.O. to issue fresh show cause to petitioner, if he considers proper and start a proceeding afresh in the matter. The Court may further observe that if there are allegations regarding non distribution of Kerosene oil etc. in accordance with the provisions of the license of the Government order, the S.D.O. must examine the relevant documents while affirming or rejecting such allegation. Petitioner would be at liberty to produce all relevant documents within a period of four weeks of the receipt of the order. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. RPS (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)