IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11821 of 2008 Majid Hussain S/o late Ghishu Hussain, R/o village- Belari, P.S.- Darigaon, District- Rohtas--------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Collector Rohtas at Sasaram 3. S.D.O. Sasaram, District- Rohtas. 4. The Block Supply Inspector, Sasaram PO & PS.- Sasaram, District- Rohtas------------------------Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5 9.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram by which he has cancelled the license of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner was that his shop was closed on the day of inspection without any intimation, the stock position was not displayed on the board, some of the persons had complained that the petitioner was selling kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 7.50 paise per liter and cash memo was not being given to the card holders. The enquiry report is annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The petitioner in his show cause has specifically stated that he had closed his shop due to the fact that he had to go to Sasaram for lifting up goods from S.F.C godown. It is said that he had given information regarding the closer of the shop. It is also specifically stated that the red card holders who have been examined in the enquiry report making allegation against him actually are not the red card holders. It has further been clarified on behalf of the petitioner that on 4.7.2000 the display board was very much in place. It is further stated that despite all these things, his show cause has not been considered at all by the S.D.O. 2 So far as closure of the shop for a day is concerned, this Court has time an again held that the closure of shop for one day, without prior intimation to the authorities, cannot be a reason for cancellation of the license, as it is an extreme punishment, and there may be reasonable grounds for closing the shop. So far as the allegation that the petitioner was not distributing food items and the kerosene oil to the red card holders, the allegation apparently appears to be untrue, in view of the fact, that the show cause specifically states that the persons named in the enquiry report are not red card holders, and no enquiry was made to prove otherwise. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the enquiry report contained in Annexures A, B and C to the counter affidavit mentioned the names of red card holders who had made allegation against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter may be examined by the S.D.O. As indicated above the petitioner’s license cannot be cancelled for closure of the shop only for one day. However, if the S.D.O comes to a finding that the persons who are examined vide Annexures A, B & C are genuine red card holders then in the opinion of this Court it would be proper ground for cancellation of the license of the petitioner subject to the fact that the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to show that the persons mentioned therein are not the genuine persons and have not been issued red cards. The petitioner will be at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the S.D.O. who will examine the matter and pass an appropriate order within a period of four months. 3 Considering the above facts this Court finds that the order of the S.D.O. is non-speaking order. In view of above the order of S.D.O. dated 31.7.2000 as well as the order of District Magistrate dated 20.11.2007 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the S.D.O. to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. RPS ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)