IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7129 of 2006 Jagdish Kumar, son of Krishori Lal Warahpuriya, resident of village Silao, Police Station Silao, District Nalanda … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir (Nalanda)... Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Sudhir Singh & Ranjeet Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents :Mr. Mohan Kr. Singh, AC to G.P.-20 02/ 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Also perused the counter affidavit of Respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-7 whereunder his PDS licence, bearing No. 70/85 has been cancelled on the ground that he violated the terms of the licence by distributing lesser quantity of the foodgrain to the consumer attached to his shop. In this connection, petitioner was given notice, bearing Memo No. 1266 dated 28.7.2005, Annexure-1 whereunder names of the consumers, who were supplied lesser quantity of foodgrains, were not indicated, but general allegation was made that petitioner is supplying lesser quantity of foodgrains to the consumers attached to his shop. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner filed show cause reply disputing the allegation as also 2 enclosing the affidavit of various consumers attached to his shop disputing the allegation levelled against him in the notice and further stated that on the date of inspection, registers maintained by him were verified by the Inspecting Team and no irregularity was found in the registers. Licensing Authority, however, under order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit rejected the cause shown on the ground that during the inspection Sunder Devi, wife of Bachchan Thakur stated before the Inspecting Team that she has been provided 12 Kilograms of wheat and 8 Kilograms of rice under Annapurna Scheme, but on her White-card 18 Kilograms of wheat and 12 Kilograms of rice has been shown to have been distributed to her and indication of the higher quantity of the foodgrains in the White-card tentamounts to violation of the terms of the licence as also Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. In this connection, it is further pointed out that Sunder Devi wife of Bachchan Thakur was never examined by the Inspecting Team in presence of the petitioner. As she was not examined in presence of the petitioner, her name was rightly not indicated in the show cause notice dated 3 28.7.2005, Annexure-1 as the one supporting the allegation. It is further submitted that had Sunder Devi been examined in presence of the petitioner, she would have been cross-examined by the petitioner with reference to the entries made in her White-card, as according to the petitioner whatever quantity of foodgrain was supplied to her, the same was noted in her White-card and the allegation to the contrary in the order is wholly incorrect. 3. From the counter affidavit, it does not appear that Sunder Devi wife of Bachchan Thakur was ever examined by the Licensing Authority or the Inspecting Team in presence of the petitioner so as to grant the petitioner opportunity to cross-examine her with reference to the entries made in her White-card. 4. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit directing the Licensing Authority i.e. the Sub- Divisional Officer, Rajgir to produce Sunder Devi wife of Bachchan Thakur for being cross-examined by the petitioner and if petitioner is able to satisfy with reference to the questions put to her during the cross-examination that the allegation levelled by her is incorrect then Fair 4 Price Shop Licence of the petitioner, bearing No. 70/85 be restored to him. 5. Necessary order in compliance of the orders of the High Court be passed by the Licensing Authority as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)