IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8418 of 2006 KASHI NATH RAM, KASHI NATH RAM, SON OF CHALAK RAM, RESIDENT OF VILAGE AMEHTA, P.S. AGIAON BAZAR, DISTRICT BHOJPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE S.D.O., PIRO, BHOJPUR. ----------- 02. 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is Fair Price Shop Licensee bearing Licence No.129 of 1992. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.2/Headquarter dated 27.1.2006, Annexure-1 passed by the licensing authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro whereunder his aforesaid licence has been cancelled on the basis of the allegation made by the 14 consumers attached to his shop. In this connection, petitioner was earlier served with the notice bearing letter No.01/Headquarter dated 25.1.2006, Annexure-2 alleging that the Block Supply Officer, Piro having learnt from the 14 consumers attached to the shop of the petitioner that petitioner is selling the commodities meant for the consumers in the black market, petitioner was called upon to submit his show cause reply within three days from the date of receipt of the 2 notice. Having received the notice petitioner submitted his reply dated 27.1.2006, Annexure-3 refuting the allegation made by the consumers and submitted that such allegation has been made on account of the local politics, which is wholly false. The show cause reply of the petitioner was considered by the licensing authority and rejected under the impugned order dated 27.1.2006, Annexure-1 with reference to the allegation of 14 consumers. 3. True it is that petitioner has not asked for any opportunity to cross-examine the allegationists but nonetheless principles of natural justice did require that the allegationists are made available for being cross-examined by the petitioner. As the allegation made before the Block Supply Officer, Piro on 25.1.2006 behind the back of the petitioner has been found to be gospel truth by the licensing authority, I am of the view that principles of natural justice required opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 27.1.2006, Annexure-1 with direction to the licensing authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro to make 3 available the 14 consumers attached to the shop of the petitioner for being cross-examined by the petitioner and if allegationists are able to withstand the test of cross-examination made by the petitioner and are found truthful by the licensing authority then he may maintain the order dated 27.1.2006, Annexure-1. 4. Before parting with this order, I may indicate that from paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit itself, it is evident that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed for default and the application for restoration of the appeal has also been dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal filed against the order dated 27.1.2006 the licensing authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro shall proceed to comply the orders of the High court within a reasonable time, not exceeding two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the licensing authority. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)