IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4829 of 2006 YOGI MANJHI @ JOGI MANJHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 24.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Government Pleader No. 2 for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 155 dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur (Saran) by which the petitioner’s licence No.6/92 for running a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner brings to the notice of the Court the show cause notice dated 8.5.2000 issued to the petitioner and it is pointed out that the same show cause notice has been issued to other licensees without any application of mind to the specific facts and allegation with respect to the petitioner and only charge no. 3 specifically relates to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner had filed his reply to the show cause, in which he has specifically mentioned about the allegation against him that the fair price shop in question was being run by one Sunil Kumar Singh and not the petitioner himself, with respect to which earlier also on a complaint of an interested person an enquiry was made by the authorities and upon such enquiry the allegation was found to be frivolous. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 does not advert to the stand taken by the petitioner and merely repeats what has been stated in the show cause notice. Learned counsel also points out the a stereotyped manner in which the impugned order has been passed, and similar orders dated 5.8.2000 has been passed in other matters. It is thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and is fit to be - 2 - quashed. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur (Saran) and the order dated 10.2.2006 passed in Supply Revision No. 36/2000-01. In the said order the Commissioner has referred to the charge regarding shop of the petitioner being run by Sunil Kumar Singh but he has also not considered the stand taken by the petitioner in the show cause reply. Moreover, there is reference to other allegations against the petitioner in the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 but with respect to the said allegation, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that they do not form part of the show cause notice issued to the petitioner rather they are purported to be passed upon the second enquiry held by the Block Supply Officer which enquiry report was not at all brought to the notice of the petitioner and thus could not have been relied upon. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court find that the impugned orders dated 5.8.2000 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur (Saran) as also the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division (Chapra) are vitiated being in violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that they are based upon non-application of mind to the matter involved. Both the orders are, therefore, quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. However, it would be open to the authorities to proceed afresh in the matter after complying with the principles of natural justice. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)