IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7714 of 2008 Bindeshwari Paswan Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 3. 30.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that license of P.D.S. shop has been cancelled by order dated 31.03.2007. The facts are that the petitioner’s license was earlier suspended vide Annexure-2 on the ground that he was only supplying 21 kilos of wheat and 14 kilos of rice to the card holders at the rate of Rs. 100/-. Although he was to supply a larger quantity. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was exonerated by the B.D.O.-cum-Block Supply Officer, Gaunaha, West Champaran. After exoneration, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 09.01.2007. The petitioner came to this Court and filed C.W.J.C. No. 4804 of 2007 which was disposed of on 08.10.2007. Challenging the order of suspension on the ground that his license has been suspended since 04.05.2005 without any final decision on 2 the issue. Later he came to know that in fact his license has been cancelled on 31.03.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while giving a reply to the second show cause he brought to the notice of the authorities concerned, the fact that he had earlier been exonerated and that there was insufficient material to show that the petitioner had violated the terms of the license. The petitioner had further prayed that he may be given personal hearing before any order is issued by the S.D.O. regarding cancellation of his license. The order as contained in Annexure-9 dated 31.03.2007 indicates that the reasons for cancellation, which is that the petitioner could not produce evidence that the beneficiaries were given wheat and rice to which they were entitled. In other words, the petitioner did not produce documents, which would prove his bonafidies. It may be noted here that the S.D.O. has not relied on any cogent materials, such as statements of the beneficiaries or the documents which show that the petitioner had not complied with terms of the license. The enquiry report also does not indicate that in fact there were any statements of the beneficiaries before the Enquiring Officer to indicate that 3 the petitioner had not duly supplied them with the food grains etc. On the basis of such flimsy reasons this Court cannot uphold the order of the S.D.O., Narkatiaganj, cancelling the license of the petitioner. In the result Annexure-9 issued vide memo No. 234 dated 31.03.2007 is quashed. The S.D.O., Narkatiaganj is directed to pass an order after serving a fresh show cause if so advised, within a reasonable period. Saif/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)