IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14379 of 2006 ====================================================== Umesh Prasad Singh son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad Singh, residentof village-soneversha, Police Station Soneversha, District-Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Food, Civil Supplies and Commerce department, Government Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Food Civil Supplies and Commerce department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa. 5. The District Supply Officer, Saharsa. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, (Supply Division) Sadar Saharsa, District-Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Mr. Alok Kumar Singh Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar Mr. Onkar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Ms. Archana Jha, A.C. to G.P.11 3 05-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.02.2006(Annexure-7) and 15.04.2006 (Annexure-1) whereby his licence granted for running a Public Distribution System was suspended and then finally cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of a report as contained in Annexure-2 of a Departmental Committee headed by Under Secretary making only vague allegations, petitioner was asked to show cause by letter dated 24.09.2005 as contained in Annexure-3. In response thereto the Patna High Court CWJC No.14379 of 2006 (3) dt.05-12-2011 2 petitioner has submitted his show cause as contained in Annexure-11. Thereafter, his licence was again renewed vide Annexure-8 on 19.12.2003 up to 2006. On the basis of the report of the Departmental Committee again a show cause was submitted by the petitioner thereafter vide order dated 22.02.2006 petitioner’s licence was suspended and finally by the impugned order dated 15.04.2006 the same was cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there has been no consideration of the grounds taken in his show cause while passing the impugned order as only one sentence has been written that the petitioner’s show cause was not found to be sufficient and the charges are found to be proved. Learned counsel drew attention towards the letter of the Secretary dated 21st September 2005 which has been written on the basis of some enquiry done by a Departmental Committee with regard to the M/s Dilip Kedia. It has been stated therein that he was selling kerosene oil at the rate of Rs. 12/- per liter but in the case of the petitioner only vague allegation has been made that petitioner is also charging amount higher than the fixed amount. A show cause was filed by the petitioner raising several points, however, there is no consideration of the same in the order impugned as contained in Annexure-1. Patna High Court CWJC No.14379 of 2006 (3) dt.05-12-2011 3 In the opinion of this Court, order seems to have been passed in mechanical manner without consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner. Not even a brief discussion of the show cause or reply filed by the petitioner is there. Thus, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the order of cancellation in its present form. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 is set aside and the writ application is allowed to that extent. The matter is remanded back to the licensing authority, i.e. respondent no. 6 who shall consider the matter afresh and pass reasoned order considering the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While doing so, the petitioner shall be accorded an opportunity of being heard on the date and time fixed by the respondent authority. However, allowing this writ application would not be construed as entitlement of the petitioner for fresh supply automatically as the same would depend upon the outcome of the order passed by the licensing authority. BIBHASH (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)