IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12737 of 2009 JAI PRAKASH CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GAYGHAT, P.S. BRAHMPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, BUXAR. 3. THE SUB-DIVISONAL OFFICER, DUMRAON, BUXAR. 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BRAHAMPUR, BUXAR---RESPONDETNS. ----------- 03. 15.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a PDS dealer. He is aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No.143 dated 16.2.2008, Annexure-3 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, Buxar whereunder his PDS licence has been cancelled. He is further aggrieved by the order bearing Memo No. 23 dated 19.3.2009, Annexure-4, whereunder the appeal filed against the order dated 16.2.2008, Annexure-3 has been rejected. 3. The original order dated 16.2.2008 was passed pursuant to notice bearing Memo No. 106 dated 1.2.2008, Annexure-1, perusal whereof indicates that the shop premises of the petitioner was inspected on 25.1.2008, during inspection it was found that he has not distributed the food grains for one month, although he had obtained supply for two months. From the notice Annexure-1 it further appears that on the date of inspection the shop of the petitioner was found closed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the two allegations mentioned in the notice are contrary to each other as the shop was found closed, the authorities could not have found that petitioner has not distributed the food grains for one month and had taken supply for two months. - 2 - 5. In this connection, it is further submitted that on the date of inspection petitioner was away to Delhi in connection with treatment of his wife and his shop was closed but after issue of the show cause notice his brother submitted show cause reply, which was considered by the authorities and the two impugned orders have been passed on the basis of the show cause reply submitted by the brother of the petitioner. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on account of illness of his wife the petitioner could neither file show cause reply nor was heard by the licensing authority, namely, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumraon, Buxar which is admitted in the two impugned orders that petitioner could not file his show cause reply before the licensing authority nor was heard in the matter and such submission was made before the original as also the appellate authority but neither the original authority nor the appellate authority gave the petitioner opportunity to file show cause as also the opportunity of being heard in the matter. 7. Counsel for the State accepts the position that petitioner could not file his show cause reply but submits that the fact of illness of the wife of the petitioner preventing the petitioner from filing show cause should have been mentioned in the show cause reply filed by the brother of the petitioner but he also did not inform the authorities that petitioner is away in connection with treatment of his wife and is not in a position to file show cause reply. Learned counsel for the State with reference to the conduct of the petitioner and his brother states - 3 - that plea of illness taken by the petitioner appears to be afterthought. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the plea of illness taken by the petitioner in this Court as also before the appellate court may be afterthought but the fact remains that he has neither filed any show cause reply in the matter nor has been heard. In the circumstances, having heard counsel for the parties, I deem it expedient to direct the licensing authority to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to file his show cause reply, which the petitioner should file within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, requisition for which shall be filed by tomorrow and after receipt of the certified copy he shall file his show cause reply to the notice dated 1.2.2008, Annexure-1 which should be considered by the licensing authority in accordance with law, notwithstanding the findings contained in the two impugned orders. In the event, the licensing authority is satisfied about the cause shown by the petitioner, he shall recall his order, otherwise it shall be open for the licensing authority to maintain the original order. 9. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)