IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4212 of 2010 Deo Kumar Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 04. 05.07.2011 Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, junior counsel to S.C. VII for the State. The writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2010 passed by the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Supaul in Supply Appeal No. 27 of 2009 whereunder the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 13.4.2009 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Birpur cancelling the licence of the petitioner has been upheld. Facts of the case briefly stated is that the petitioner is a licencee under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘order’) having a licence bearing no. 76 of 2007. The petitioner has his Fair Price Shop within Gram Panchayat Devipur under Raghopur Block in the district of Supaul. On alleged complaints made on behalf of certain consumers, the petitioner was directed to show cause in respect of certain charges set out in Memo No. 54 dated 20.2.2009 as contained in Annexure-1. The charges as set out in the show cause notice are six in number and allege non- compliance of procedural requirement of the order as well as misusing his position as a dealer under the Public Distribution 2 System and of indulging in mal-practices. The said show cause issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur, Supaul was followed by a second show cause as contained in memo No. 155 dated 28.2.2009. While rejecting the show cause filed in response to the show cause dated 02.02.2009, the S.D.O., Birpur suspended the licence of the petitioner with effect from 13.7.2009. By the second show cause the petitioner was again asked to respond to the same set of allegations. The petitioner responded and denied the allegations. Insofar as non-compliance of the procedural requirements in relation to notice board is concerned, it was stated that as some repair was being carried out hence the same was not found hanging in front of the shop and has now been placed at the proper place which can be verified. Insofar as infirmity in statutory measure for kerosene oil is concerned, it was stated that the same has been verified and has also been renewed. The allegation of making less supply of kerosene oil was denied and it was stated that the allegation was motivated and made at the behest of certain interested persons. In response to the allegation of non-maintenance of statutory registers, the allegation was denied and it was submitted that whatever minor errors were there in the maintenance of the register has since been rectified. The show cause reply of the petitioner was forwarded by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Birpur vide letter dated 18.3.2009 (Annexure-3) to the Block Development Officer, Raghopur for 3 making an enquiry and for submission of a report after making enquiry. It is contended that the report so desired by the Sub- Divisional Officer was never submitted by the Block Development Officer and even in absence of the same the Sub- Divisional Officer vide Memo. No. 69 dated 13.4.2009 cancelled the licence of the petitioner in exercise of power vested under Clause 7(2) of the order. The Sub-Divisional Officer while passing the order of cancellation has mentioned that the show cause reply filed by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice dated 2.2.2009 was lacking in evidence, devoid of logic, beyond truth and that the petitioner was making out a defence which was not true. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 13.4.2009 preferred an appeal giving rise to Supply Appeal No. 27 of 2009 and which was also rejected by the Collector, Supaul vide order passed on 16.1.2010 as Annexure-5 and the order of cancellation was upheld. In the entire proceedings what this Court finds is that none of the allegations including that of less supply of kerosene oil and forcing the consumers to pay excess amount, is supported with documentary evidence. Save and except sweeping allegations there are no specific instances enabling the petitioner to deal with each one of them. It is but obvious that such general nature of allegations was responded to by the petitioner in a general manner of denial which has been rejected 4 under the impugned orders as being not satisfactory and beyond truth. The counter affidavit filed in the present case also encloses no such complaints which were the basis of the proceedings in question. There is no report of any preliminary enquiry into the allegations leading to the issuance of the show cause in question. In absence of such relevant materials connecting the charges with petitioners, the proceedings were conducted in most casual manner. The rejection of the show cause is also in a sweeping manner without dealing with the stand taken by the petitioner. Proceedings of the present nature which entails cancellation of licence has to be more objective and supported with documentary evidence which is completely lacking in the present case. In the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to quash the impugned orders dated 13.4.2009, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Birpur as contained in Annexure- 4 and the order dated 16.1.2010 passed by the Collector, Supaul as contained in Annexure-5. The writ petition is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)