IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4625 of 2006 LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 22.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 9 for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 5.8.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur (Saran) by which he has cancelled the petitioner’s Licence No. 7/92 for running a fair price shop under the Public Distribution System and further for quashing the order dated 26.2.2002 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Supply Appeal No. 33/2000 and also the order dated 10.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division (Chapra) in Supply Revision No. 30/2002-03 by which the Appeal and Revision filed respectively by the petitioner have been rejected upholding the order of cancellation. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice by Memo No. 385C dated 8.5.2000 asking him to explain as to why his licence of Fair Price Shop should not be cancelled in view of the five charges mentioned in the said show cause and by the said order, the petitioner’s licence was also suspended. The petitioner submitted his reply to the five charges made in the show cause dated 8.5.2000. After receiving the petitioner’s explanation, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Block Supply Officer, Dariyapur to again send his report giving his comments on the basis of the explanation submitted by the petitioner and the materials available on the record. The same - 2 - was sent by the Block Supply Officer by his letter no. 385 dated 25.7.2000. On the basis of subsequent report of the Block Supply Officer, the Sub-Divisional officer, mentioning five charges different from those given in the show case notice held that they have been proved against the petitioner and accordingly cancelled his licence no. 7/92 with immediate effect. The petitioner thereafter filed Supply Appeal No. 33/2000 before the Collector, Saran at Chapra which was rejected by order dated 26.2.2002. Thereafter, he filed Supply Revision No. 30/2002-03 before the Commissioner, Saran Division (Chapra) but the same was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled on five charges mentioned in the impugned order dated 5.8.2000 which have been proved against the petitioner. However, it is pointed out by reference to the show cause notice dated 8.5.2000 that none of those charges are mentioned in the show cause. It is thus submitted that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been directed to explain the fresh charges on the basis of which the cancellation of petitioner’s licence has been considered and finally the same has been cancelled. It is thus submitted that the order suffers from non-application of mind to the charges which the petitioner was directed to answer and is based upon new grounds regarding which no explanation was sought from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State seeks to support the impugned - 3 - orders stating that serious irregularities have been found against the petitioner in the impugned order and thus the licence of the petitioner has been rightly cancelled. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the authorities have acted in the present matter in an unreasonable and arbitrary manner by issuing show cause for certain charges and deciding the matter on entirely different charges on the basis of which the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled, but which had not been indicated to the petitioner nor he has been given any opportunity to reply to the same. For the said reason the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned orders dated 5.8.2000, 26.2.2002 and 10.2.2006 have no leg to stand and they are accordingly quashed. The writ application is accordingly allowed. However, it shall be open to the authorities to proceed again in the matter by issuing a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner and giving him an opportunity to defend himself. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)