IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2819 of 2001 SHREE NARAIN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 20.01.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. In this writ application, the order canceling licence of the petitioner under Public Distribution System has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was found to have indulged in black marketing of Kerosene Oil. From the impugned order, it would appear that the same was passed in the light of an earlier order passed by the Collector, Begusarai dated 25.8.2000 in a confiscation proceeding. That order, Annexure-2, itself goes to show that not only the Collector of the District had sought to confiscate 800 litre of Kerosene oil but had also passed an order for initiating proceeding for cancellation of licence of the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, is justified in submitting that the provision of appeal against the impugned order cancelling the licence of the petitioner could not have been availed inasmuch as such proceeding for cancellation of licence was initiated only because of the direction in the order of the Collector who is also appellate authority under the Control Order. - 2 - This Court in fact would find that Licensing Authority has not at all considered the explanation which was submitted by the petitioner on 20.10.2000 (Annexure-4) and the show cause notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 14.10.2000(Annexure-3) was itself indicative of the fact that the Sub-Divisional Officer had already closed his mind by treating the order of the Collector for confiscation proceeding to be a binding direction for him to cancel the licence of the petitioner. This Court therefore, is satisfied with the impugned order has been passed not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also the Licensing Authority, the S.D.O has acted under the dictation of the Collector of the District. Such order therefore, cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned order, Annexure-5 is hereby quashed. In view of the fact that there is already a direction by the Collector to take steps for cancellation of licence in a confiscation proceedings and such order is also appelable before the Secretary of the Food and Civil Supply, this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case would direct the petitioner to file his show cause reply to the Collector of the District who will now pass the necessary order as with regard to cancellation of licence in respect of show cause notice as - 3 - contained in Annexure-3 and if an adverse decision is taken by the Collector of the District, the petitioner will have the remedy of appeal before the Secretary of the Food and Civil Supply. In view of the fact that such order of cancellation of licence was passed way back in the year 2000, the Collector of the District before whom the petitioner’s show cause reply as contained in Annexure-4 is to be considered, must pass an order within a period of three month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Collector, he may approach to the Appellate Authority- the Secretary, Food and Civil Supply of the State Government who should also pass the appellate order within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal. This Writ Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)