IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4881 of 2006 GYANTI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 22.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 156 dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional officer, Sonepur (Saran) by which he has cancelled the petitioner’s licence No. 02/96 for running a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System and further for quashing of the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Supply Revision No. 37/2000-01 by which the petitioner’s application in revision has been rejected. The main ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the show cause notice dated 8.5.2002 issued to the petitioner, five charges are mentioned to which she was asked to reply and which was duly answered but the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional officer is not on the basis of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice but on entirely different allegations which the Sub-Divisional officer has gathered from another enquiry report submitted by the Block Supply Officer on 25.7.2000. It is submitted that the said facts were not brought to the notice of the petitioner nor he was directed to give any explanation with respect to the same. It is thus contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been a violation of the principles of - 2 - natural justice since the petitioner has not been given a fair opportunity of defending himself before the licence has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the State seeks to refer to the second enquiry report of the Block Supply Officer in support of the order of cancellation and revisional order upholding the same. From the show cause notice dated 8.5.2000 and the impugned order dated 5.8.2000, it is evident that the charges which have been found proved against the petitioner had not been brought to the notice of the petitioner. Admittedly, no further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to answer to the fresh charges which were apparently brought out in the course of the second enquiry made by the Block Supply Officer. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 and the revisional order dated 10.2.2006 have no legs to stand and they are quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed. However, the authorities will be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter after complying with the principles of natural justice. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)