IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.275 of 2011 ------- Bhim Ram , Son of late Sheochan Ram, R/O Village- Belthmokri, P.S. Ramnagar,Distt-West Champaran..Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner-Cum- Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Bagaha, West Champaran 4. The Block Supply Officer, Ram Nagar, West Champaran 5. The Block Supply Inspector, Ram Nagar, Bagaha, West Champaran............................................................ Respondents 7 21-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. By the order dated 10-12-2003 contained in memo no. 180 dated 14-12-2003 ( Annexure-5 ), the Sub- divisional Officer, Bagaha cancelled the licence of appellant issued to him as a dealer under the Public Distribution System as per provisions of Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification) Order,1984 ( hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order,1984.) This was done on account of certain complaints against the appellant by a team constituted for inspection of his shop. Earlier, he was given show cause notice in respect of allegations levelled against his shop, pointing out various irregularities detected by the Inspecting team. He was directed to submit his show cause along with evidence as to why his licence be not 2 cancelled. He was further directed to bring his Stock register, Distribution register and cash-memos along with his show cause. The first show cause notice bearing memo no. 410 dated 11-9-2003 is annexure-1. The second notice for production of registers etc. was issued along with order for suspension of the licence as contained in memo no. 431 dated 23-9-2003 which is annexure-2. 3. The original records from the office of Sub- divisional Officer, Bagaha relating to appellant’s case bearing no. 5 of 2003 have been produced before us by learned counsel for the State. The same shows that order- sheet was maintained only till the 3rd., order dated 16-9- 2003. That order mentions about service of show cause notice dated 11-9-2003 and the fact that after service of notice, no show-cause was filed nor any of the required registers or cash-memo were produced. The order-sheet does not mention about the order or notice dated 23-9-2003 which is actually the order for suspension of appellant’s licence. That letter does not ask for any show-cause but reiterates the direction for production of the Registers and cash-memos for scrutiny, before the confidential section of 3 the S.D.O. Bagaha. A show cause filed on behalf of appellant without any date and without any receipt by any official is available in the original records. One entry on the left column shows that a certified copy of such undated show cause was issued on 24th December, 2003. At the bottom of the show cause Stock register, Distribution register and cash-memos are mentioned as enclosures. The number of cash-memos and pages of the two Registers are, however, not indicated. The actual show cause available on the record is only of one undated page and without any enclosures. 4. The order of cancellation of licence mentions two grounds for cancellation of licence. The first ground is that according to appellant, he had lifted stocks of food-grains only five times, whereas according to the District Manager of the concerned depot at Bettiah, he had lifted the stocks of food-grains on eight occasions. On this basis and on the second ground that in spite of demand, the appellant failed to produce any document relating to shop, the licence of the appellant has been cancelled. 5. Before the writ court only a legal issue was raised 4 on behalf of appellant to challenge the order of the Sub- divisional Officer, Bagaha as well as the order of the appellate authority, the Collector Bettiah, that clause-7 of the Public Distribution System ( Control ) Order 2001 alone shall be applicable for cancellation of appellant’s licence and the same cannot be cancelled by the authority competent to cancel licences issued under the Unification Order,1984. That issue has been rightly answered by the writ court against the appellant. 6. Before us the appellant has raised the issue that since the allegation that he had lifted food-grains on eight occasions was not mentioned in the show cause notice or in the inspection report or enquiry report , hence such ground could not have been used for cancellation of the licence. With respect to second ground, it has been submitted that because his show cause mentioned that Stock-register, Distribution register and cash-memos were enclosed with the show cause, the S.D.O. committed an error of record and an error of fact in holding that the appellant had not produced any documents as required. 7. We would not like to enter into the dispute of facts 5 as to whether appellant had actually made the registers available for inspection or not. Going by the official records produced before us, we find that the order-sheet dated 16-9- 2003 mentions that no show cause or registers and other documents were filed but thereafter the show cause has been accepted on the record and is mentioned in the order of cancellation passed by the S.D.O. Whether the stock- register, distribution register and cash-memo shown to be annexed with the show cause were separately received or not should have been mentioned in the order-sheet itself. However, as noticed earlier the learned S.D.O. has failed to maintain the order sheet after 16-9-2003. Hence, it cannot be decided conclusively whether any Registers and cash-memos were submitted by the appellant along with show cause or not. It has been strenuously submitted on behalf of appellant that the Registers and cash-memos submitted by the appellant are still lying separately in the office of the Sub-divisional officer. 8. So far as ground no.1 is concerned, the show cause notice issued upon the appellant vide annexure-1 or even the subsequent letter contained in annexure-2 do not 6 mention about any report from the District Manager, Bettia about lifting of grains on eight occasions. This allegation is not mentioned either in annexure-D to the supplementary show cause, which is an enquiry report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Ram Nagar dated 5-9-2003 or in the further enquiry report dated 17-10-2003 submitted by the Ward member contained in annexure-4. 9. No doubt, if it was shown conclusively from the records that in spite of notice the appellant failed to produce the required Registers etc., the competent authority could have cancelled the licence of the appellant on account of dis-obedience and non-compliance with orders and directions, which are required to be followed under various clauses of the Unification Order, 1984. But as the original records are defective and there is no order sheet to show whether the registers and documents were submitted or not along with show-cause and as the order-sheet does not mention even receipt of show cause which has been considered by the S.D.O. Bagaha, we are of the view that justice and equity require that another opportunity should be given to the appellant to search, locate and present the 7 documents before the S.O.O. and also to explain the subsequent allegation on the basis of report of the District Manager, Bettiah that he had lifted food-grains on eight occasions. The appellant would be at liberty to meet this ground or allegation through fresh show cause. 10. To enable the appellant to file fresh show cause and to locate and produce relevant registers, the impugned orders have to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned S.D.O. Bagaha. The appellant must file his show cause and also locate and produce the relevant documents within six weeks from today. Thereafter the S.D.O. shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by any earlier order including this order. Since we have set aside the orders of the S.D.O. as well as the appellate order of Collector, hence, to that extent the order passed by the writ court shall stand modified. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)