IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6303 of 2006 Sikander Majhi, son ofSital Manjhi, resident of village Horaji, P.s. Dighwara, District Saran …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra 2. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sonerpur, Saran 4. The District Supply Officer, Saran at Chapra 5. The Executive Officer, Sonepur, Saran 6. The Block Supply Officer, Dighwara (Saran) …… Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : M/s Rajeev Kr. Singh, G.P. 15and Sunita Kumari, A.C. to G.P. 15 4 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 28.11.2002, as contained in Annexure 2, passed by the licensing authority, the appellate order dated 19.8.2003 as contained in annexure 3 and the revisional order dated 3.3.2006 as contained in annexure 4 passed by the Collector – cum District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra and the Commissioner, Saran Divisional Chapra respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though he has submitted a show cause but that 2 has not been considered in the impugned order which has been passed with regard to three persons including the petitioner. It is submitted that, in the impugned order, it stands recorded at one place that the show cause was not satisfactory whereas at another place it has been stated that the petitioner has not filed any show cause. It is next contended that the order impugned does not disclose any cogent reason for cancellation of licence except that there was an inquiry report by the some In-charge Magistrate or the show cause had not been found satisfactory or not filed. Thus, the order impugned has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. Learned counsel for the State submits that it is apparent from the orders passed by the authorities that the petitioner has not submitted any show cause. However, she was not in a position to show that any reason for cancellation of the licence has been assigned in the order passed by the licensing authority except that there was some inquiry report against the petitioner or the show cause was either not satisfactory or not filed at all. Learned counsel was 3 also not in a position to explain as to why at one place of the impugned order it is stated that the show cause has not been found satisfactory and subsequently at another place it has been recorded in the same order that no show cause has been filed at all by the petitioner and others. I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner. 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. It is also well settled that the error or defect committed by the licensing authority, being an original authority, in passing the impugned order cannot be cured at the appellate or revisional stage 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. 4 In above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court the impugned order as contained in Annexures 2, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained in its present form and, accordingly, they are quashed and set aside to the extent they concern the petitioner and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority to decide the case afresh after granting the petitioner opportunity to file a show cause after supplying a copy of the inquiry report and also after giving opportunity of hearing to him within six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a certified copy of this order by 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 nature of the order to be passed by the licensing authority. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)