IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14606 of 2010 1. Julum Paswan S/O Late Somer Paswan R/O Vill.- Kasiadih, P.S.- Vazirganj, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate- Cum -Collector, Gaya 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Division-Sadar, Distt.- Gaya 4. The Block Supply Officer, Block- Vazirganj, Distt.- Gaya ---------------------------------- 5. 08.9.2011. Heard Ms. Sushmita Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rewati Kant Raman, learned Assisting Counsel to G.P.13 appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Order’) and is aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.2010 passed by the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Gaya Cum Appellate Authority, whereby while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner bearing P.D.S.Appeal No.19 of 2008, he has confirmed the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the respondent no.3 Licensing Authority-cum-the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division, Sadar, District Gaya, whereby the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner is a dealer under the Order and was granted licence in the year 1990 bearing Licence No.22/1990. The only issue which has been raised by the 2 petitioner is that the enquiry report of the Block Supply officer, Wazirganj which is the basis of the show cause notice as contained in Annexure-3, the impugned order of cancellation of licence passed by the respondent no.3 dated 31.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-2 and the order in appeal passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17.4.2010 in Appeal No.19 of 2008 as contained in Annexure-1 was never supplied to the petitioner. It is submitted that a bare perusal of the show cause notice placed at Annexure-3, demonstrates that the allegations were general in nature and without any specific instances and as a result, the petitioner also submitted a general response denying the allegations. It is contended that certain procedural lapses were alleged against the petitioner including not making supplies in a regular manner but there is no allegation of any misappropriation by the petitioner or of selling the food grains by him in the black market. It thus submitted that in absence of any positive evidence demonstrating violation of the condition of licence or statutory provisions or any mal practices by the petitioner of selling food grains and kerosene oil in black market, the petitioner could not have been punished with an extreme punishment of cancellation of his licence. In the circumstances, it is 3 contended that the reliance of the Statutory authorities under the ‘Order’ on the report of the Block Supply Officer, Wazirganj, for imposing the punishment, is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the said report was never handed over to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner having been granted licence as back as in the year 1990, was ever charged with any allegation of mal practices and that, the present proceeding is an outcome of the dissatisfaction of the Block Supply Officer, Wazirganj. A perusal of the order passed by the respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure-2 and the appellate order as contained in Annexure-1, demonstrates that both of them have relied upon the report of the Block Supply officer, respondent no.4 dated 8.8.2007 which has been brought on the record of the proceedings by way of supplementary counter affidavit. The said report of the respondent no.4 though contains the complaints made by several card holders but, a copy of the report was never supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was thus definitely prejudiced by the non-supply of the report and could not file a purposeful reply to the show cause. A statement to this effect has been made by 4 the writ petitioner in paragraph 6 of the writ petition alleging non-supply of the enquiry report prepared by the Block Supply Officer, Wazirganj and which has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by respondents. Considering the circumstances that the copy of the enquiry report which is the basis of the impugned order, was never supplied to the petitioner, the orders passed by the respondent no.3 the Licensing Authority and the respondent no.2 the Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexures-2 and 1 respectively, can not be sustained and are accordingly set aside. However, this would not result in automatic restoration of the licence of the petitioner and the same would be governed by the final outcome of the proceedings. Now, that the copy of the enquiry report has been supplied to the petitioner, he shall be required to file an appropriate response to the allegations as set out in the said report. The matter is remitted back to the Licensing Authority respondent no.3 the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sadar, District Gaya to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same after affording him opportunity of filing a fresh reply to the show cause in the light of the enquiry report and also after giving 5 him an opportunity of hearing. An early disposal of the matter, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order would be appreciated. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)