IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13310 of 2005 Harendra Singh @ Harendra Prasad Singh, S/o Late Hem Narayan Singh, resident of village – Khikauwan, P.S. – Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali ……. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 3. The District Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur, at Hajipur 5. The Incharge, Block Supply Officer, Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narayan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, A.C. to S.C. III ------------ 5 20.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. By filing this writ application the order dated 26.7.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur in Misc. Revision No. 89 of 2002-03, dismissing the revision application of the petitioner and affirming the impugned orders dated 24.6.2000 passed by the respondent no. 4 and 6.4.2002 passed by the respondent no. 3 is sought to be quashed. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 2 24.6.2000, as contained in Annexure 7, passed by the licensing authority, i.e., the Sub Divisional Officer, Hajipur (respondent no. 4) as well as the order dated 6.4.2002, as contained in Annexure 8, passed by the Collector, Vaishali (respondent no. 3) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the order passed by the licensing authority. The petitioner claims to have been granted licence for running a public distribution system shop in Manganpur Panchayat in District Vaishali in the year 1981. It is claimed that he was running the shop to the satisfaction of all concerned. However, the petitioner’s shop was allegedly inspected by the respondent no. 5, i.e., the In-charge Block Supply Officer, Bhagwanpur Block on 25.4.2000. and an inquiry report was submitted by him vide memo no. 29 dated 28.4.2000. On the basis of the inquiry report the petitioner’s licence was suspended on 20.5.2000 and petitioner was asked to show cause as to why his licence should not be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause was submitted by the petitioner on 9.6.2000, a copy 3 whereof stands appended as Annexure 3. However, the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled by the licensing authority, i.e., the respondent no. 4 by the impugned order dated 24.6.2000. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Collector, Vaishali which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 142 of 2000, however, that was also dismissed on 6.4.2002 vide Annexure 8. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8704/2002. However, in view of the statutory provision for filing a revision, the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to avail such remedy. Eventually the Misc. Revision No. 89 of 2002 – 03 was filed before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure 10). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from a bare perusal of the order passed by the original authority it would appear that no reason has been assigned for cancelling the licence except one sentence, i.e., show cause filed by the petitioner has 4 not been found to be satisfactory. The appellate authority has also committed similar mistake by affirming the aforesaid order. In revisional order, though the case has been discussed in detail but it has been observed that all the disputed facts cannot be verified at the stage of revision as merely the procedural and legal defects, if any, are to be examined. However, it is urged that the legal defect, that was apparent in the original order, surprisingly skipped the attention of even the revisional authority. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. A stand has been taken that in the inquiry the petitioner has been found not following the procedures as the persons entitled were not being given the articles and the other irregularities also in distribution of grains and kerosene oil were also apparent. Thus, the licensing authority, not finding the show cause to be satisfactory, has correctly cancelled the licence of the petitioner. However, learned counsel was not in a position to show from the original order that any reason except that the 5 show cause of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory, has been assigned in the impugned order while cancelling the licence of the petitioner. By now it is well settled that any order visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order having been challenged, would not be in a position to know what were the reasons which has led the authority in passing such order. In my opinion that is a serious lacunae. From bare perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 7, it appears that no reason has been recorded by the licensing authority and the order appears to have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. It would be very difficult to this Court to sustain such type of order in its present form. This aspect has escaped even the attention of the appellate as well as revisional authority. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others (1999(1) Bihar Law Judgments, 548) has held that the non application of mind and 6 factum of not assigning any reason vitiates the order passed by the licensing authority. Even if the inquiry reports and other records of the case have subsequently been considered by the appellate authority, that itself would not be able to cure the defect which has remained in the order passed by the original authority. This Court also while passing the order in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and its analogous cases has followed the aforesaid principle. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexures 7, 8 and 10 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and while doing so he would be obliged to consider the show cause filed by the petitioner and take necessary decision recording a reasoned order within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioners for resumption of supplies 7 automatically as the same would depend upon the decision which would be taken in accordance with law by the licensing authority. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)