IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15190 of 2006 Kamta Prasad Choudhur son of Banka Choudhur, resident of village Maharani Bairiya, P.O. Jasulipatti, P.S. Kotwa, District East Champaran .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Commissioner,Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, 4. The S.D.O., Motihari Sadar, Motihari, 5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari, 6. The Block Development Officer, Kotwa Block, Kotwa within the District East Champaran, 7. The Supply Inspector, Kotwa within the District East Champaran, 8. Shri Surendra Rai son of late Sukhdeo Rai, resident of village Koirgama, P.S. Kotwa, P.O. Jasaulipatti, District East Champaran at present Mukhiya of Panchayat Raj Maharani Bhopat, within the Block of Kotwa, District East Champaran, … …Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Sachin Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anant Kumar Bhaskar, AC to SC 2 … 6 19.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in paragraph 1(I) of the writ application with regard to the description of order dated 26.09.2006 passed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, respondent no. 3, as contained in Annexure 9, whereby the orders passed earlier by the respondent no. 4 cancelling the licence of the petitioner 2 has been affirmed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was granted licence no. 10 of 1985 for running a PDS shop in the year 1985 itself. By letter dated 19.03.2004(Annexure 2) passed by the Block Development Officer, Kotwa, respondent no. 6, recommendation for suspension of the licence of the petitioner was made. Subsequently, by the order as contained in order dated 18.03.2004 (Annexure 3) the petitioner’s licence was suspended and he was directed to show-cause as to why the same should not be cancelled. Petitioner submitted a show-cause, a copy of which is appended as Annexure 4 and, thereafter, by letter dated 07.06.2004(Annexure 5) a recommendation was made by the Block Development Officer, respondent no. 6, for accepting the show-cause of the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s licence was cancelled vide order as contained in letter no. 147 dated 27.08.2004, passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari Sadar, Motihari, respondent no. 4 a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 6 to this writ application. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no. 4 has been dismissed by the District Magistrate, East Champaran, 3 Motihari, respondent no. 3 vide order dated 18.06.2005, as contained in Annexure 7. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, respondent no. 2, who had set aside the earlier order and remitted back the matter to the Collector, East Champaran, for consideration afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has been noticed in the order that the Collector while passing the impugned order has confined himself only to the extraneous influence caused by the recommendation of the Respondent no. 6 and the cancellation order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar, Motihari. The order also reveals that the grounds mentioned in the show-cause filed by the petitioner were not considered and there was no consideration of the later report/letter of the Block Development Officer, Kotwa either in the order of cancellation passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Motihari or in the appellate order passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. Thereafter the impugned order was passed on 26.09.2006. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that again there has been non-consideration of the show- cause filed by the petitioner before the original authority and 4 the subsequent report of the Block Development Officer, Kotwa has been brushed aside stating that there is nothing in the later report in favour of the petitioner, whereas from the letter, which is appended as Annexure 5, it is apparent that he has recommended for acceptance of the show-cause. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and it has been stated that after due consideration of the materials on record, the order as contained in Annexure 9 has been passed by the respondent no. 3. However, learned counsel for the State could not point out either from Annexure 6, i.e. the original order passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar, Motihari, or the appellate order as contained in Annexure 7 dated 18.06.2005, which has been passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, respondent no. 3 or from the final order which is dated 26.09.2006, whereby the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, has closed the file finding no material in favour of the petitioner, that the grounds raised in the show-cause filed by the petitioner stand considered. That being the situation, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, dated 26.09.2006, as contained in Annexure 9, 5 cannot be sustained in law, and, thus, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4, the Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar, Motihari, to pass an appropriate order after consideration of the show-cause filed on behalf of the petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing to him. It is made clear that quashing of the impugned order does mean automatic resumption of supplies in favour of the petitioner. That would depend upon the final decision taken in this regard by the competent authorities. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)