IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14711 of 2006 Rajendra Rai, Son of Narsing Rai, Resident of village- Semara Tola Dhar, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champran (Motihari)… ….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector, East Champaran (Mothiari), 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikarahna, District- East Champaran (Motihari), 4. The Block Supply Officer, Chiraiya, District- East Champaran (Motihari)….. ….Respondents ……………. For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Syed Hussain Majeed, A.C. to A.A.G. VII …………………… 6 15.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.11.1999 (Annexure-3) passed by the Licensing Authority, whereby the licence of the petitioner for running a Public Distribution System Shop has been cancelled and also the order dated 25.08.2006 (Annexure- 4) passed by the Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner against the original order has also been dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has stated in his show cause, a copy of which has been 2 appended as Annexure-1, that some persons were distributed Red Cards in the month of November, 1998. The articles to be distributed to them were available in his shop but could not be distributed as none of them came for receiving the same. However, the articles had been distributed to all the earlier card holders and none of them had lodged complaint. It is further contended that the authority concerned has assumed that since the articles concerned were admittedly present in the shop of the petitioner, he must have deliberately not distributed the same for selling it in black market. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed disclosing that the concerned PDS has been attached with another PDS shop and no fresh licence has been granted in anyone’s favour. Thus, there is no question of creation of any third parties interest. However, in opinion of this Court, on the basis of the complaint made by certain Red Card holders, some inquiry should have been made by the concerned authority with regard to the correctness of complaint specially when the show cause on behalf of the petitioner 3 disclosed that the materials were still in the stock of his shop which also indicated that he had not sold the same in any black market. Thus, it appears that it has been presumed, without any inquiry, that the petitioner intended to sell the same in the black market. Same stand has been taken by the appellate authority also in the appellate order dated 25.08.2006 (Annexure-4). In above view of the matter, in opinion of this Court, the order dated 05.11.1999 (Annexure-3) and order dated 25.08.2006 (Annexure-4) cannot be sustained in their present form and, thus, both are quashed. Accordingly, the writ application is allowed to that extent and the matter is remanded back to the Licensing Authority to make a proper inquiry and issue fresh show cause to the petitioner alongwith the enquiry report and, thereafter, pass necessary order after considering the show cause of the petitioner by recording a reasoned order. This exercise is to be done within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy. If the petitioner does not co-operate then the authority would be at liberty to take a decision even in his absence. It is also made clear that this order would 4 not entitle the petitioner of automatic resumption of supplies as the same would depend upon the final decision to be taken by the licensing authority. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)