IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6125 of 2006 LAL BABU PRASAD, SON OF LATE MOHAN LAL PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PURANI BAZAR MAHARAJGANJ, P.O. & P.S. MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, SARAN DIVISION CHAPRA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM LICENSING AUTHORITY, MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT SIWAN. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, SIWAN. 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, DARAUNDA, DISTRICT SIWAN. 7. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, STATE FOOD CORPORATION, DISTRICT SIWAN. For the petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kr. Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.B. Singh, AC to AAG-15. ----------- 02. 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a licence holder for distribution of kerosene oil. His licence has been cancelled by the licensing authority under order bearing memo no.475/C dated 18.3.2006, Annexure-4. Earlier petitioner was served with notice bearing memo no.1689/C dated 24.12.2005, Annexure-2 directing suspension of his licence as also calling upon him to file show cause reply to the allegations found true against him in the enquiry report after examining various persons whose names have been indicated in 2 the show cause notice. Perusal of show cause notice indicates that petitioner is alleged to have sold kerosene oil to others who are not attached to his shop. Having received the show cause notice petitioner filed show cause reply dated 3.1.2006, Annexure-3, close perusal whereof indicates that he admitted that his kerosene outlet remained closed between 15.12.2005-21.12.2005 as he was attending on his ailing maternal grand son. It also appears from the show cause reply that petitioner lifted his consignment of kerosene oil (570 liters) on 24.12.2005 which reached the shop premises on 24.12.2005 at about 1 p.m., whereafter distribution of the kerosene oil was undertaken by the petitioner which continued until 29.12.2005. In support of the aforesaid distribution of the kerosene oil petitioner enclosed with the show cause reply the extract from the distribution and allotment register. In the show cause reply petitioner further submitted that allegationist named in the enquiry report are not the consumers of his shop and their allegation is absolutely incorrect. It was further submitted in the show cause reply that petitioner has been regularly lifting the consignment of 3 the kerosene oil and distributing the same to the constituent of his shop every month. In the concluding portion of the show cause reply petitioner regretted closure of the shop for the period between 15.12.2005- 21.12.2005 as during the said period his maternal grand son was ill and he was attending on him. It is further submitted with reference to the contents of the aforesaid show cause reply that before cancelling the licence of the petitioner, petitioner should have been given opportunity to cross-examine the allegationist so as to enable the petitioner to establish before the licensing authority that the allegationist were not attached to his shop as customers. Such opportunity having not been given to the petitioner, the impugned order cancelling his licence suffers from the vice of arbitrariness as petitioner has not been given opportunity to defend himself. 3. Counsel for the State has defended the impugned order dated 18.3.2006, Annexure-4 on the ground that allegation levelled against the petitioner that he closed his shop without information to the consumers of his shop is admitted by the petitioner as 4 he candidly stated in the show cause reply that the shop premises remained closed between 15-21.12.2005 during which period no information was given on the notice board of the shop that the shop is closed on account of other pressing engagement of the petitioner. It is further submitted that on the date of inspection i.e. 22.12.2005 also the shop remained closed and the plea taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply that he had gone on 22.12.2005 to lift the consignment of kerosene oil does not appear to be correct as no such information was given by the petitioner on the notice board of his shop. It is submitted that had the petitioner gone to lift the consignment of kerosene oil he should have indicated such fact on the notice board of the shop. In this background, learned counsel for the State submitted that even though petitioner has not been given opportunity to cross examine the allegationist who have alleged against the petitioner that he is selling the kerosene oil to those who are not attached to his shop, yet the impugned order is not required to be interfered with by this Court. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, and 5 having perused the show cause notice dated 24.12.2005 Annexure-2 and the impugned order dated 18.3.2006, Annexure-4 it is evident that shop of the petitioner was found closed on the date of inspection i.e. 24.12.2005 on which date he had gone to lift the consignment of kerosene oil(570 liters). The fact that petitioner had gone to lift the consignment of the kerosene oil on 24.12.2006 should have been maintained on the notice board of the shop in terms of the provisions of the licence. Omission to give such information on the notice board, however is to be viewed in the light of the fact that his licence has remained under cancellation for about 5 years. So far the allegation that petitioner is selling kerosene oil to those who are not attached to his shop such finding cannot be accepted only on the basis of the allegation levelled in the enquiry report as petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the allegationist. In view of my observation above 5. In view of my observation above while setting aside the impugned cancellation order dated 18.3.2006, Annexure-4, I remand back the matter to the licensing authority to grant opportunity to the petitioner 6 to cross-examine the allegationist and if after cross examination of the allegationist the licensing authority is satisfied that allegation of selling kerosene oil to those who are not attached to the shop of the petitioner is not established, the licensing authority may consider the desirability of restoring the license of the petitioner by granting him a chance to improve. Necessary compliance of this order be made 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 before him. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)