IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10091 of 2011 Manju Devi W/O Shri Nageshwar Yadav, Resident of Mohalla- Bhagwanpur Panchayat, Chotahi, P.S- Block Riga, District-Sitamarhi. …….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum- Commissioner Department of Food, Consumer & Protection Affairs, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi. ……Respondents. ------------ For the petitioner : M/s. Gautam Kejriwal & Gopal Prasad, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, A.C. to G.P.3. ---------- 12/ 22.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition had originally been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the allotment of monthly quota of articles including Sugar, Kerosene Oil, Food grains for sale through Public Distribution System shop which has been stopped since August, 2010 without any reason much less any communication thereof to the petitioner under law; (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to drop the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner for alleged irregularities committed in course of operation of the Public Distribution System shop simply on the basis of stray complaints made by the local rivals and persons having spite against the petitioner; (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of declaration that the respondents without having either suspended the license of the petitioner or having - 2 - taken any action in terms of the Public Distribution System Order, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on account of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the license and in absence of any First Information Report lodged against the petitioner are not justified in suspending the supply of monthly allotment of quota of articles since August, 2010; and for any other relief [s] for which the petitioner may legally be found entitled to in the facts & circumstances of the present case. 3. However, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 10.08.2011 it was stated in paragraph 21 thereof that the petitioner’s licence had already been cancelled on 04.04.2011 (Annexure-D), hence there was no occasion for granting reliefs as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 4. In response to the said counter affidavit, the petitioner filed a rejoinder as well as an interlocutory application bearing I.A.No.6036 of 2011 for adding another relief to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. (iv) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 04.04.2011, contained in Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos. 3 & 4 through the Block Supply Officer, Riga, Sitamarhi whereby the license of the P.D.S. dealership belonging to the petitioner has been said to have been cancelled ex parte, illegally and without any details of materials on record and grounds of rejection of the reply submitted by the petitioner. 5. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record it is quite apparent that it is not in dispute that the original of the stock register, sale register and other registers concerned were already produced by the petitioner in the office of the - 3 - licensing authority, namely Sub-Divisional officer Sadar, Sitamarhi (respondent no.4) as far back as in the month of December, 2010 itself. But from the impugned order dated 04.04.2011 it transpires that the said documents were not considered and the orders were passed on the basis of some kerosene coupons only. 6. From the impugned order it also transpires that the licence of the petitioner was not cancelled for violation of any specific provision of law. Hence, the allegations made against the petitioner could have been decided only on the basis of records, original of which had already been produced by the petitioner before the concerned authorities as admitted by them in paragraph 12 of the supplementary counter affidavit, but no consideration of such documents, including registers, had been shown in the impugned order. The said order should have been passed after considering all the documents and making reference thereof in the order. These matters cannot be legally supplemented or supplanted by statements of the authorities made in the counter affidavit or supplementary counter affidavit. 7. So far the defence of the petitioner is concerned, petitioner cannot support his pleadings if the records and registers are already with the respondents and copies thereof are not made available to the petitioner, but it is apparent from the impugned order that no such opportunities were ever given to the petitioner to support his pleadings made in his show causes. Thus, it is quite apparent that there is clear deficiency in the decision making process of the respondents - 4 - while passing the impugned order. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of and the impugned order dated 04.04.2011 (Annexure-D) passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Sitamarhi (respondent no.4) is hereby quashed and the said authority is directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after giving the aforesaid opportunities to the petitioner and pass a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, he will be at liberty to challenge the said order before the appellate authority as provided in law. 9. However, till the passing of the said order, the supply which was earlier being made to the petitioner, would not be stopped. Sunil/ (S.N.Hussain, J.)