IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11223 of 2008 SANJAY KUMAR S/O NATHUN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE UBHAI P.S. PARAIYA DISTRICT- GAYA. .. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEKARI DISTRICT GAYA. 4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER PARAIYA DISTRICT- GAYA. … RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: M/s. Amarnath Singh & Ashok Kumar, Advocate. For the State : M/s. S.K. Sharma (Sr.Advoate) & Shalini Raut AC to GA-5. ----------- 6. 06.12.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner at the relevant time was a PDS dealer. He is aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2007, Annexure-3 passed by the licensing authority, whereunder his PDS license has been cancelled on the basis of the irregularities found at the instance of the District Magistrate. During the visit of the area in which shop of the petitioner is situate District Magistrate received complaint against the petitioner on the basis of which instructions were issued to the Block Supply Officer to inspect the shop premises of the petitioner, who submitted report dated 19.6.2007, on the basis of which notice dated 3.7.2007, Annexure-1 was issued to the petitioner asking him to show- cause as to why his PDS license be not cancelled in view of the irregularities found during the inspection of the shop premises by the Block Supply Officer. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that notice dated 3.7.2007 calling the petitioner to 2 submit his reply within a week was served on him on 17.7.2007 and he filed his reply on 25.7.2007 but without considering the reply the impugned order cancelling the PDS license of the petitioner was passed on 24.7.2007 itself. It is also submitted that alongwith notice dated 3.7.2007 petitioner was not served with the copy of the inquiry report dated 19.6.2007 as such it was not possible for him to visualize the allegations made against him by the inspecting authority and to file his reply within the time fixed in the notice and such fact should have been appreciated by the licensing authority before he proceeded to pass the order dated 24.7.2007. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his PDS license was cancelled without giving him adequate opportunity to refute the allegation found against him. The order cancelling his license should not only be quashed but his license be also restored. In support of such submission, learned counsel has relied on the order of this Court dated 8.10.2007 passed in the case of Ram Pratap Singh & ors. versus State & ors bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1350 of 2007, Annexure-5. 3. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit. He states that license has been cancelled with reference to the irregularities noticed in the shop of the petitioner during the inspection of the shop by the Block Supply Officer on 19.6.2007 and this Court should be slow in setting aside the cancellation 3 order as the inspection of the shop premises was made on the basis of the allegation received by the Collector during his visit of the area on the basis of which Block Supply Officer inspected the shop to verify the allegations by visiting the shop premises. It is also submitted that reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner over order, Annexure-5 is also misplaced as in the said case the order dated 8.10.2007, Annexure-5 has been passed appreciating the fact cancellation order was passed on the basis of the instructions of the Collector of the District the Appellate Authority and in appreciation of such fact this Court in Annexure-5 directed the licensing authority to restore the license of the petitioner. In the present case, counsel for the State pointed out that the impugned order has not been passed on the basis of the instructions of the Collector who learnt about the complaints against the petitioner on the basis of which he asked the Block Supply Officer to make inspection of the shop and to submit report on the basis of which notice dated 3.7.2007, Annexure-1 has been issued. Counsel for the State candidly admitted that alongwith the notice dated 3.7.2007 copy of the report dated 19.6.2007 was not annexed which may be an irregularity and this Court in appreciation of such irregularity may pass appropriate order remitting back the matter to the licensing authority for reconsideration after service of the inspection report dated 19.6.2007 on the petitioner. 4 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I set aside the impugned order dated 24.7.2007, Annexure-3 and remit back the matter to the Sub-divisional Officer, Tekari, respondent no.3 who should furnish a copy of the inspection report dated 19.6.2007 to the petitioner within one week of receipt of this order with direction to the petitioner to file his show-cause reply with reference to the allegations made against him in the inspection report dated 19.6.2007 and pass appropriate orders in the matter, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the show-cause reply by the Sub- divisional Officer, Tekari. 5. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)