IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9818 of 2007 Amrendra Kumar Jha son of Late Kamlanand Jha, resident of village- Ekamba, P.S. Jalalgarh, District-Purnia. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner, Purnia Division, Puria. 3. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Purnia. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia. 5. Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar, Purnia. 6. Supply Inspector, Kasba District-Purnia. …… Respondents. ----------- 03/ 28.09.2010 At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant writ petition order of Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) cancelling the licence of the petitioner and the order of the Collector (respondent no.3) dismissing the petitioner’s appeal as well as the order of the Commissioner (respondent no.2) dismissing petitioner’s revision have been challenged, but due to the coming into force of Govt. of Bihar, Food Supply and Commerce Department, Pubic Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, no such revision has been provided in law and hence petitioner should have moved before this court against the appellate order of the Collector without going before the Commissioner (respondent no.2). She also submits that in the said circumstances, dismissal of the revision by the Commissioner on technical ground be not treated as any hindrance in the petitioner challenging the original order of the Sub-Divisional officer, Sadar, Purnia (respondent no.4) as well as the appellate order of the Collector (respondent no.3) which are also under challenge in this case. 2. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioner, the prayer is allowed. The revisional order on technical ground passed by the Commissioner shall not be a hindrance in the petitioner challenging the original order as well as the appellate order before this court. In the said circumstances, petitioner is permitted to proceed with this writ petition challenging the appellate order of Collector (respondent no.3) dated 28.12.2007 (Annexure-7) as well as the original order of Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) dated 01.03.1997 (Annexure-6). 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-State of Bihar and its authorities. 4. It transpires from arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record that the petitioner had a fair price shop licence no.83 of 1985 under Public Distribution System. It also transpires that there were four allegations against the petitioner, namely (a) that in November, 1996 he gave kerosene oil and sugar only to selected persons, (b) that in November, 1996 kerosene oil and sugar was not supplied to most of the people and was black marketed and (c) that the petitioner was selling kerosene oil and sugar to the consumers at higher rate and (d) that on the date of inspection, petitioner’s shop was found closed although it was a working day. 5. It further transpires that inquiry report was submitted by Supply Inspector, Kasba in the district of Purnia (respondent no.6) dated 21.12.1996 (Annexure-2) which was an ex parte report. Thereafter show cause notice dated 08.01.1997 (Annexure-1) was - 3 - issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia (respondent no.4) to the petitioner, in reply of which the petitioner submitted his detailed show cause on 30.01.1997 (Annexure-4) and also supplied a Shradh Kard (Annexure-5) of his uncle which clearly showed that shradh was fixed on 21.12.1996. 6. From the impugned order dated 01.03.1997 (Annexure- 6) as well as from the impugned order dated 28.12.2003 (Annexure- 7), it is quite apparent that the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent.4) and also the Collector (respondent no.3) did not at all consider the point raised by the petitioner in his show cause or in the memorandum of appeal nor even considered the materials on record in favour of the petitioner and rejected the claim and appeal of the petitioner by a non- speaking and cursory order without even looking into the materials on record as well as the pleadings of petitioner. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the said orders cannot be held to be sustainable in law and are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea (respondent no.4) to consider the matter afresh after giving opportunities to both the sides to produce further evidence, if they so like, and to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)