IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11663 of 2005 SHRI KANT SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 21.01.2009 Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The impugned order seeking to cancel the licence of the petitioner under Public Distribution System and its affirmatory appellate order dated 6.8.2005, Annexures-3 and 4 respectively to this writ application, have been challenged by the petitioner only on the ground that the authorities have failed to consider the defence of the petitioner in true perspective inasmuch as whatever was observed in the show cause notice dated 15.4.2005(Annexure-1) in course of the inspection by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Licensing Authority, was based on statements of nine persons who according to the petitioner, were henchmen of the Mukhiya. The petitioner in fact had taken this plea before this Court that the statement of aforesaid nine persons were not supplied to him and as such this aspect could not be explained in the show cause reply. The learned counsel had accordingly sought for an indulgence that another enquiry should be held for examining this aspect. It is an admitted position that the show cause reply of the petitioner was considered by the Licensing - 2 - Authority while passing the impugned order for cancellation of licence. The impugned order would however, go to show that no specific reason was recorded for rejecting the defence taken by the petitioner and in fact a bald statement only to the extent “Jh flag dk Li’Vhdj.k fcYdqy vlarq’V ik;k x;k A” is the only reason emanating from the impugned order. It is true that the petitioner also did not disclose any further evidence to contradict the tentative findings in the show cause notice of the Licensing Authority who had himself personally held the inspection of the licensing premises and had found the premises to be closed but then the fact does not get proved as to whether it was the case of single day default. So far allegation of closure of shop, the defence of the petitioner is that a specific information given about the closure of premises as recorded in the Notice Board. Therefore, the closure of shop on a single working day could not have been the reason for cancellation of licence. The statement of nine persons which have been made the basis for cancellation of licence, however, in absence of their being supplied to the petitioner could not have been relied. As a matter of fact, from Annexure-1 it would appear that only the submission of Sri Sukhal Ram was recorded in writing and the statement raised by eight - 3 - persons namely, Sri Gorakh Ram, Sri Butai Ram, Smt. Paspati, Mostt Simarikhiya, Sri Sahadar Majhi, Sri Sukai Ram, Smt. Munni Devi and Smt. Radhika Devi were not recorded in writing or if they were recorded in writing they have been not mentioned so in the show cause notice. It was therefore, very difficult for the petitioner to contradict the statement of nine persons in absence of a regular proceeding and was examined in such proceeding or at least supply of the copy of such written/oral statement. That being so, the Licensing Authority could not have referred to and relied on the statement of nine persons and to that extent since he had himself held the inspection, he was required to at least follow the principle of natural justice in letter and spirit. The appellate authority also has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has merely gone on the basis of the averments made in the show cause notice. The appellate authority in fact failed to consider the specific defence of the petitioner as with regard to non-compliance of principle of natural justice. In such a situation, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-3 and 4 being apparently vitiated on account of violation of principle of natural justice, cannot be sustained and are accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Licensing Authority who - 4 - now will supply the copy of each and every materials mentioned in the enquiry report dated 15.4.2005 including the written/oral statement of the aforesaid nine persons. In the event, such written/oral statement is not available, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, who had submitted the enquiry report will be allowed to be cross-examined by the petitioner after being summoned by the present Sub-Divisional Officer. The present Licensing Authority after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner would pass a fresh order without being influenced by the earlier order and in case he still chooses to cancel the licence of the petitioner, he would record the reasons for the same. In view of the fact that the licence of the petitioner was cancelled on 15.4.2005 and this Court has to remit the matter back for reconsideration, the Licensing Authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj, is directed to dispose of the entire proceedings before him within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and directions this writ application is disposed of. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)