IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6795 of 2006 AINUL HAQUE, SON OF LATE ALI HUSSAIN ALIAS MIR HASAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAWALPUR, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE D.M.SIWAN. 3. THE S.D.O. MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 4. THE B.D.O.-CUM-B.S.O. DARAUNDA, DISTRICT- SIWAN:--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 07.04.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, also perused the counter affidavit, copy whereof was not served on the counsel for the petitioner as on the receipt appended with the counter affidavit it is mentioned by the counsel for the State Sri Ajit Kumar, J.C. to G.P. 20 that on 07.12.2006 the Advocate for the petitioner was not found. No useful purpose will be served by adjourning the matter so as to enable the counsel for the State to serve the counter affidavit on the counsel for the petitioner as even if full reliance is placed on the statement made in the counter affidavit, the situation is not going to improve in favour of the State. 2. Petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer bearing Licence No. 263/91. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness of the order bearing Memo No. 477 ‘C’ dated 18th March, 2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, Annexure-1, whereunder aforesaid P.D.S. licence of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect. Close perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the same has been passed relying on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the report of the Enquiry Officer referred to 2 in the impugned order was never served on the petitioner and he had no opportunity to deal with the findings recorded in the said report and failure to serve the report tantamounts to violating the principles of natural justice and on this short ground the impugned order is fit to be set aside. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that just three months earlier to the passing of the impugned order suspension of the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner was vacated by the authorities as the authorities did not find anything against the petitioner. Aforesaid order is contained in Memo No. 1352 dated 13.10.2005, Annexure-2. After issue of the order dated 13.10.2005, Annexure-2 petitioner resumed his business as a P.D.S. dealer and while he was discharging his responsibilities he received another show-cause notice bearing Memo No. 1694 dated 24.12.2005 in response whereto he submitted his reply, Annexure-3 categorically stating that the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice dated 24.12.2005 is not correct whereafter the matter was referred to the Block Development Officer-cum-Block Supply Officer, Daronda for further enquiry in the matter who was directed by the Sub-Divisional Officer to submit his report under letter bearing no. 392 dated 4th March, 2006, Annexure-4. In response to the said letter dated 04.03.2006 an enquiry was conducted by the Block Development Officer, behind the back of the petitioner in which the Block Development Officer examined few of the constituents of the shop and submitted a report against the 3 petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that neither the consumers of the shop were examined by the Block Development Officer in presence of the petitioner nor the copy of the report of the Block Development Officer was ever served on him but relying on the said report the impugned order has been passed. Such fact is also admitted in the counter affidavit. Further report of the Block Development Officer-cum-Block Supply Officer is also not annexed with the counter affidavit. 3. It is, thus, quite evident that the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner without giving him adequate opportunity to defend himself as the consumers who were examined against him by the Block Development Officer, petitioner was never given any opportunity to cross-examine them nor the report of the Block Development Officer was served on the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is established that the impugned order dated 18th March, 2006, Annexure-1 has been passed violating the norms of natural justice, which is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Licensing Authority to proceed in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the constituents who have alleged against him. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)