IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14629 of 2008 Ram Dular Rai, son of Sri Ram Rashi Rai, resident of village- Mukund Dera, P.S.- Nawanagar, District- Buxar. ……Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumaron, Buxar. 3. The Block Supply Officer, Nawanagar, Buxar. …… Respondents. ----------- 03 02.03.2009 The petitioner was a dealer of Public Distribution System and had a licence under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. Petitioner, being a retail dealer, has the licence granted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Dumaron, district Buxar. Being a dealer under public distribution system, the petitioner was also entrusted with food grains under various governmental programmes for distribution like food for work etc. It appears that on 02.11.2007, the Licensing Authority, Sub-divisional Officer, conducted an inspection at the petitioner’s premises, which was found closed. Some local people made certain complaints. Pursuant to the aforesaid, petitioner was issued a show cause notice for cancellation of his licence. Petitioner’s response was then sent by the Sub-divisional Officer to the Block Supply Officer, Nawanagar for enquiry. After conducting the enquiry, the Block Supply Officer submitted his report on or about 12.12.2007 to the Sub- divisional Officer and accepting the report, the Sub-divisional Officer, without any further notice to the petitioner nor disclosing the said report to the petitioner, cancelled his licence by order dated 19.12.2007, as contained in Annexure-3, the quashing of which is sought for by the 2 petitioner. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The short point, as raised by the petitioner, is that having entrusted the matter of enquiry to the Block Supply Officer, Nawanagar, before the Licensing Authority accepted the enquiry report, he should have disclosed the same to the petitioner and ask the petitioner to object to the report, if any. The report having been drawn up by person other than Licensing Authority himself, it was incumbent upon the Licensing Authority to disclose the report before acting on it. For the said proposition, the petitioner has relied on the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar & Ors. since reported in (1993) 4 Supreme Court cases 727, wherein dealing in respect of disciplinary proceedings, their Lordships clearly held that where an adverse enquiry report is received, enquiry is conducted by the officer other than the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be disclosed before any action based thereon is taken as that was the minimal requirement of just, fair and reasonable procedure in consequence with the principles of natural justice. In paragraph no. 29 of the reports, the Court has thus observed :- “….Hence, when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before 3 the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice…..” Thus, in that view of the matter, I have no option but to set aside the order of the Licensing Authority and remand the matter to the authority for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Licensing Authority will be well advised to conclude the matter after notice to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this order. The writ petition itself thus, stands disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)