IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2004 of 2007 YOGENDRA SINGH @ YOGENDRA PD.S Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2 16.07.2008 Heard counsel for the parties. Vide Annexure – 5, contained in the writ application, which is dated 30.12.2006, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. The challenge to this order, made by the petitioner, is that there is absolutely nothing to disclose from the order as to what weighed with the Licensing Authority while repelling the explanation offered by the petitioner. Though serious allegations have been made against the petitioner and he has filed a kind of detailed show cause, but, the entire explanation has been dealt with by one statement that the same has not been found to be satisfactory. Perusal of the impugned order does not leave this Court also any wiser because, if the Licensing Authority had even cryptically stated as to what part of the explanation was not cogent enough to be accepted may be the occasion to remand the matter for fresh consideration would not have arisen. The Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The impugned order contained in Annexure – 5, dated 30.12.2006 is therefore quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar with a direction 2 that he should deal with the matter afresh after issuance of notice to the petitioner at the earliest and take a decision preferably within three months as the issue relates to the year 2006. The writ application is allowed. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)