IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14999 of 2004 BIHARI PRASAD S/O Late Dwarkia Prasad, Resident of Village- Sheopurwa, P.S. Ramnagar, Dist- West Champaran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bagaha, Dist- West Champaran. 4. The Block Supply Officer, Ram Nagar, West Champaran. 5. The Block Supply Inspector, Ramnagar, Bagaha Distt. West Champaran. ----------- For the Petitioner: - Mr. Bashitha Narayan Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Brij Kishore Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondents: - S.C. 6 -------------------------- 3. 20.04.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner was granted licence no. 47 of 1985 for running a Public Distribution Shop under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) order, 1984 by the competent officer of the respondent State. On the basis of certain charges of committing certain irregularities in running the aforesaid Public Distribution Shop at village- Ram Nagar in the District of West Champaran, by an order dated 10.9.2003 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his licence be not suspended/ cancelled. Petitioner claims to have 2 submitted his show cause denying the allegations against him, yet by final order dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure-5) licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bagha. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cancellation, preferred an appeal before the respondent District Collector, West Champaran, giving rise to case no. C.R.M. 14/03-04 (Bihari Prasad Vs. State). The appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent District Collector by the impugned appellate order dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure-6). Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of both the original order as also the appellate order. He further submits that the appellate authority has not, at all, considered the merit of the case of the petitioner and has mechanically dismissed the appeal filed by him. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has supported the impugned order and has placed his reliance on averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. After having heard the parties and considering the materials available on record, this 3 Court finds that respondent District Collector, while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure-6), has not considered the points raised on behalf of the petitioner, and mainly on certain technical grounds, has dismissed the aforesaid appeal. The appellate authority was required to examine the claim of the petitioner on its own merit, which has apparently not been done in the present case. For the reasons recorded above, impugned order dated 24.8.2004 (Annexure-6) is here by set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent District Collector for hearing the appeal of the petitioner afresh on its own merit and deciding the same once again in accordance with law. The respondent District Collector shall be obliged to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merit by a speaking order within a period of six months, from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this present writ application stands allowed. No Costs. Anand Kr. ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)