IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2013 of 2005 BANESHWAR MAHTO, SON OF SHRI MADHUSUDAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAZIYA, P.S. DANDGHORA, DISTT. KATIHAR………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KATIHAR ….RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : M/s N.K. Agrawal and D.N. Tiwari, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Samrendra, SC-21 ----------- 02/ 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure-1) by which Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar (respondent no.3) cancelled Fair Price Shop Licence No.28 of 1985 under the Public Distribution System. 3. It further transpires that when a proceeding was initiated licence of the petitioner was suspended under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 by the said authority vide order dated 25.11.2002 (Anneuxre-4), whereafter an opportunity for filing show cause was given to the petitioner, who also filed his show-cause twice and finally vide order dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure-1) the said authority cancelled the licence of the petitioner. - 2 - 4. From the impugned order it is quite apparent that the authority concerned had not considered the defence taken by the petitioner and the materials produced by him rather the said order was passed merely on the direction of the District Magistrate, Katihar which was sent to the Sub- Divisional Officer vide letter dated 04.12.2004 (Annexure-6) issued by the Supply Officer, Katihar. As a result, the licence of the petitioner had been cancelled in a cursory manner without giving any reason and without pointing out any lacuna in the conduct of the petitioner. 5. So far the District Magistrate is concerned, he is an appellate authority as per the aforesaid Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification ) Order, 1984 and he had no jurisdiction to send such directions to the Sub-Divisional Officers who according to the provisions of law had to apply their independent minds on the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings of the parties and the materials available on record which in the instant case is absolutely absent. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this writ petition is allowed. Order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar dated 09.12.2004 (Annexure-1) is hereby quashed and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar is directed to decide the matter afresh considering the pleadings of the parties, the materials and the provision of law applicable thereto without being influenced and without considering the aforesaid order or any other order in that regard passed by the District - 3 - Magistrate. If the petitioner files an application along with a copy of this order within four weeks from today, the Sub- Divisional Officer, Katihar shall hear the parties and decide the matter by a speaking order within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)