IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1412 of 2011 ASHOK KUMAR, SON OF BARHO PRASAD YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GORIHARI, P.S.- ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA :--- PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 5. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 6. DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, NAWADA. 7. DISTRICT ENGINEER, DISTRICT BOARD/DISTRICT RURAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, NAWADA. 8. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 9. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA. 10. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, ROH, DISTRICT- NAWADA :- --RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 04.02.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a P.D.S. dealer. He is aggrieved by the two notices dated 13.01.2011 (Annexure-1 and 1/1), whereunder he has been asked by the Block Development Officer, Roh (Nawada) to deposit Rs. 13,23073.80/- and Rs. 17,06275/- by 20th of January, 2011 the cost of the food grain kept in the godown of the petitioner for distribution under different schemes for the betterment of the downtrodden. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before issue of the aforesaid two notices petitioner was never asked to show cause. It is also submitted that had the petitioner been given opportunity of being heard he would have explained to the Licensing Authority that the food grain was kept under instructions of the Licensing Authority and no sooner the scheme was closed after 1st 2 April, 2006 petitioner requested the authorities to remove the remaining food grains otherwise the same is likely to be destroyed as the food grains have been kept in open sky for want of space in the godown of the petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is not responsible for destruction of the food grains in any manner as also for loss to the exchequer. 3. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that as the notice to deposit the aforesaid amount has been issued without giving the petitioner chance of being heard it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to file representation before the licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli which should be considered in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, as early as possible in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representation along with a copy of this order. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)