IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10288 of 2008 Suresh Paswan, son of Late Hari Paswan, village Padapa, Ps Nardiganj, District Nawadah – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, Nawadah. 3) The Dist. Supply Officer, Nawadah. 4) The S.D.O. Sadar, Nawadah. 5) The Block Dev. Officer cum Marketing Officer, Nardiganj, Dist. Nawadah – Respondents. 3 18.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures 3 and 4. Annexure 3 is the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar cancelling the license of the petitioner vide order, dated 18.1.2006. There are two fold grounds for cancelling the license, the first being that there is an allegation that there was illegality in distribution of kerosene oil and secondly it is said that the petitioner had not distributed the food grains to the red card holders. A show cause was issued to the petitioner to which he replied. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the show cause he has submitted the documents showing that he had distributed the food grains to the red card holders. I may make it clear that it is merely submission as there is no such statement in the writ petition. The Subdivisional Officer has cancelled the petitioner’s license without examining the two persons who had lodged complaint that the petitioner was not distributing kerosene oil and food grains in accordance with law. The petitioner filed an appeal after one year. The appellate authority has dismissed his appeal on the ground that it was time barred and the explanation given by the petitioner for the delay in 2 filing the appeal is not satisfactory. On perusal of Annexure 3 it would appear that the order is defective, to say the least. If there is an allegation in which there is written report by certain persons that they were not satisfied with the manner in which the petitioner was dealing with the food grains / kerosene oil, then it would be incumbent on the Subdivisional Officer to examine those persons or take their affidavits. It would have also been proper for the enquiry officer to have examined the records of the petitioner to substantiate the claim that the petitioner had violated the terms of the license. In the result I find that the order contained in Annexure 3 is not reasonable and based on cogent material. I quash the orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4 and remit the matter to the Subdivisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar to examine all the relevant documents and statement of complaint and thereafter pass a fresh order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order within one month on its receipt before the Subdivisional Officer, Nawadah Sadar. The appellate order in the facts aforesaid is also quashed. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)