IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.823 of 2011 Karu Choudhary Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2 7.7.2011 The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya contained in memo no.1064 whereby the licence no.38/2007 under Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2001 has been cancelled. The petitioner submits that a copy of the enquiry report was not given to him and Sheo Kumar Sah one of the complainants is not a consumer under him. He submits that the name of other complainant has not been mentioned in the order. The petitioner further submits that as the impugned order has been passed without thus giving adequate opportunity, the same may be set aside. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it has been stated that pursuant to the complaint made an enquiry was made by the Block Supply Officer, Wazirganj who submitted enquiry report containing the statement of several consumers. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner should take all these points before the Appellate Authority i.e. before the Collector, Gaya that the impugned order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is bad in law 2 KHAN as the enquiry report has not been given to him. He may refer the order dated 6.12.2010 passed in C.W.J.C.No.1201 of 2008 (Md. Shafique Alam Vs State of Bihar & Ors) and its analogous cases. In case the petitioner files an appeal, the learned Collector would consider his application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court. The appeal be disposed of preferably within four months from the date of condonation of delay. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)