IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11963 of 2005 SRI RAM PATHAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 23.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The only issue raised by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order of cancellation of licence dated 24.10.2003 and its affirmatory appellate order dated 12.7.2005 is that none of the two orders disclose any application of mind on the specific defence taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply and/or memo of appeal. In the opinion of this Court, even if all the allegations against the petitioner is accepted to be correct, the same were required to be looked into and considered by recording findings in respect of each of the three charges separately in the light of the defence taken by the petitioner in the show cause filed by the petitioner. That having not been done, the one line cryptic order of the Licensing Authority dated 24.10.2003 (Annexure-1) cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, all that he has 2 recorded therein is that the explanation of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. Such subjective satisfaction alone however is not the scope of Clause-11 of the Bihar Trade Art. (Licences Unification) Order,1984. Unfortunately, even the appellate authority has also not considered this aspect while affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer by yet another cryptic order. Counsel for the State, however, has tried to justify the order of the Licensing Authority by taking a plea that there were unimpeachable material to show that the petitioner despite being repeatedly reminded through his family members, did not lift the stock of kerosene oil and as such was single handedly responsible for creating scarcity by non-supply of the kerosene oil to the beneficiary Card holders. It is true that there are certain materials on record which could have justified the reasoning given in the impugned order but then those reasons were required to be recorded in the order in the light of the defence taken by the petitioner. For example the petitioner had taken a defence that he had gone to attend 3 the marriage ceremony of his family member and therefore, how far the petitioner could be held guilty for closing the shop by not making alternative arrangement for the supply of essential items was always required to be gone into in the light of his defence of limitations imposed in the license for making arrangements of alternative distribution of the essential goods. All these aspects, however, have not at all been gone into by either of the two authorities and therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to set aside both the impugned orders (Annexures 1 and 2) and remit the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider the show cause reply of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Sub-Divisional Officer while considering the show cause reply of the petitioner may also take into account that the petitioner by way of cancellation of his license has already suffered for a period of almost six years and therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations 4 against the petitioner which does not have any ingredient of black marketing of kerosene oil, the said licensing authority may also take a liberal view and condone the lapses on the part of the petitioner and allow him to carry his business by restoring his license with prospective effect, if there be not other material against the petitioner. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. BC ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)