IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7127 of 2006 Mundrika Manjhi, son of Sri Hari Manjhi, resident of village Chandra Shekhar Nagar, Police Station Chhabelalpur, District Nalanda … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgir (Nalanda) …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s Sudhir Singh & Ranjeet Kumar, Advocates For the State :A.C. to G.A.5 02/ 11.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a PDS licensee. His licence No. is 15/97. This writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, to quash order, bearing Memo No. 1365 dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-4 whereunder aforesaid licence of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that his shop was found closed on the date of inspection i.e. 24.2.2006 as also on the ground that he is selling kerosene oil in black market. Earlier, petitioner was given show cause notice, bearing Memo No. 877 dated 31.3.2006, Annexure-2 whereunder he was called upon by the Licensing Authority to show cause by 5.4.2006 as to why his licence be not cancelled on the ground that his shop was found closed on 24.2.2006 and that he is not 2 distributing the kerosene oil to the consumers attached to his shop for the last six months. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner submitted his show cause reply dated 5.4.2006, which is said to have been received by the authorities on 8.4.2006 and is contained in Annexure-3 to this application, perusal whereof indicates that petitioner indicated in the said show cause reply that the shop was closed on 24.2.2006 for sometime when he was attending some urgent personal work during which period the notice board was also kept inside the shop premises to avoid its theft. As regards non-distribution of kerosene oil, it was submitted by the petitioner in the show cause that allegation that he is not distributing the kerosene oil to the consumers attached to his shop is not correct. 3. From the counter affidavit, it appears that petitioner was asked under Memo No. 1330 dated 20.4.2006, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit to produce evidence in support of his assertion made in his show cause reply dated 5.4.2006 received on 8.4.2006 by 24.4.2006. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that 3 without waiting until 24.4.2006 so as to enable the petitioner to produce evidence in support of his assertion that he was not distributing the kerosene oil to those who were not consumers of his shop, the Licensing Authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-4 and thereby deprived the petitioner of adequate opportunity to defend himself which the Licensing Authority himself had granted under Memo No. 1330 dated 20.4.2006, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am satisfied that petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the light of the cause shown under show cause reply dated 5/8.4.2006, as under information, bearing Memo No. 1330 dated 20.4.2006, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, he was granted time until 24.4.2006 then it was expected of the Licensing Authority to have waited until 24.4.2006 and to pass the impugned order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-4 only thereafter. For not providing the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend himself in the light of the notice dated 31.3.2006 and 20.4.2006, Annexures-2 and B, I set 4 aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2006, Annexure-4. In the event Licensing Authority is of the view that the enquiry in regard to distribution of the kerosene oil to unauthorized person(s) is still required to be continued then the Licensing Authority must provide the names of the consumers who have made such allegation against the petitioner as also produce them for cross-examination by the petitioner. In the event Licensing Authority decides not to proceed with the matter as the allegation is more than four years old and to grant the petitioner another chance then his licence be restored. 6. Appropriate order in this regard be passed by the Licensing Authority as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Licensing Authority. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)