IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10937 of 2005 LAL SAHEB SINGH, son of late Hari Singh, resident of village- Ariaon, P S – Krishna Brahm, District – Buxar. --------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Buxar. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumraon, Buxar. 4. The Supply Inspector, Dumraon, Buxar. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Patna. -------------- Respondents ****** For the petitioner: Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Anil Kumar Roy. For the respondent State: Mr. Kumar Alok, SC 19 and Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, JC to SC 19. ------ 03. 12.01.2009 Petitioner was holder of licence of Public Distribution System when certain allegations came to be made against him by the Supply Inspector of the area. Allegation is that the petitioner used to retain the red-card with himself and was not supplying wheat and rice to the beneficiaries legally. Show cause was ordered to be issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumraon. Petitioner filed his show cause. On the show cause a response was sought for from the Supply Inspector by the S.D.O. Based on the so-called response by the Supply Inspector, the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Licensing authority decided to cancel the licence of the petitioner. Efforts of the petitioner to challenge the orders passed both in appeal as well as in revision failed. In present writ application therefore orders passed by the licensing authority coupled with the appellate order and the revisional order is under challenge. - 2 - Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no doubt a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the licensing authority but it is evident from reading of the order itself that the basis for decision of the licensing authority is the so-called response of the Supply Inspector which was sought for on the show cause of the petitioner. Not only this, it is also alleged that the said report of the Supply Inspector was not furnished to the petitioner and therefore, he could not satisfactorily respond to the same. It is also urged that this has caused serious prejudice in meeting the allegation more so when entire proceeding was initiated on the report of the Supply Inspector himself initially. There could have been material and occasions based on which the respondent authorities took the harsh decision against the petitioner but then it is also true that such a decision having consequences for the petitioner must be taken after giving full opportunity to the petitioner of a right of hearing as also the material based on which such a decision is going to be taken. Since in the present case it is evident that the response of the Supply Inspector seems to have weighed with the licensing authority which was not supplied to the petitioner, the Court comes to an opinion that the order of cancellation contained in annexure-1 cannot be sustained. Annexure-1 and the consequential orders passed in appeal and revision are accordingly set aside. Matter is remanded back to the licensing authority i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Dumraon to issue a fresh show cause to the petitioner and hold an enquiry by giving - 3 - opportunity and thereafter pass appropriate order in this regard. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)