IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3526 of 2006 SUDHANSHU KR. TIWARY, SON OF LATE SATYA NARAIN TIWARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMATHA KHEM, P.O. LINE BAZAR, P.S. MIRGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 3. THE SDO HATHUA, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, HATHUA, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. 5. MR. MADHOK KUMAR, SON OF NOT KNOWN, BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. 6. MR. VIJAY PRATAP SINGH, SON OF NOT KNOWN, S.D.O. HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. ----------- 05. 28.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. His fair price shop licence has been cancelled by the licensing authority under order dated 21.3.2005, Annexure-4. The order cancelling the licence of the petitioner has also been affirmed in appeal vide order dated 24.11.2005, Annexure-4A. 3. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid two orders on the ground that the report of the enquiry team dated 9.3.2005 was not furnished to him as also the fact that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the members of the enquiry team. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before the enquiry was ordered petitioner had lodged complaint against the Licensing Authority, Sub- Divisional Officer, Hathua and the Block Supply Officer, Hathua who were members of the enquiry team, such complaint is dated 25.6.2004, 2.2.2005, 12.2.2005, 14.2.2005, 19.2.2005, 10.3.2005 and was filed in support of the supply appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.3.2005 but without considering those documents the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal under orders dated 24.11.2005, Annexure-4A. - 2 - 4. Having perused the impugned appellate order dated 24.11.2005, Annexure-4A it is quite evident that neither the report of the enquiry team was furnished to the petitioner nor he was provided with opportunity to cross-examine the members of the enquiry team as also the fact that the documents which he had filed do not appear to have been considered. As the impugned appellate order dated 24.11.2005 has not considered the submissions noted above, it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and is, accordingly, set aside and the mater is remitted back to the appellate authority with direction to serve on the petitioner the report of the enquiry team dated 9.3.2005 as also to make available the members of the enquiry team for being cross-examined by the petitioner, thereafter the appellate authority should pass fresh order in the matter, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the event, the appellate authority is not able to dispose of the appeal within the time indicated in this order, in spite of due diligence in prosecution of the appeal by the petitioner, it shall restore the licence of the petitioner, which shall be subject to the result of the final order passed by the appellate authority. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)