IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7259 of 2006 Md.Ishrar Ahmad, S/o Md. Anwar, Resident of Mohalla Charkawan Mahmood, Ward No. 2, P.S. Rafiganj, District Aurangabad …. ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The S.D.O., Aurangabad Sadar, Aurangabad 3. Labour Inspector, Aurangabad, Rafiganj I & II … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :M/s N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Vijay Anand & Anujit Sinha, Advocates For the State :Mr. Binay Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-13 02/ 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is a PDS licensee, bearing No. 4/R/98. He has filed this writ petition questioning the correctness and legality of the order, bearing Memo No. 9 dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-4 whereunder his aforesaid PDS licence has been cancelled holding that he is indulging in black marketing of the commodities given to him for being supplied to the consumers attached to his shop. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the notice, bearing Memo No. 362 dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 whereunder petitioner has been asked to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled in the light of the report of the Labour Inspector, Aurangabad dated 11.4.2006 whereunder the Labour 2 Inspector reported that the shop of the petitioner does not exist in the area for which it has been established and the commodities made available to the petitioner is sold in black market. Having received the notice dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1, petitioner submitted his explanation Annexure-2 stating that his PDS licence was suspended under order, bearing Memo No. 556 dated 8.9.2003, Annexure-3 and after receipt of the said suspension order, petitioner has not received any supply and the findings of Labour Inspector contained in his report dated 11.4.2006 that petitioner is indulging in black marketing of the essential commodities is wholly incorrect. 3. It appears, without considering the aforesaid show cause reply, Annexure-2 as also the fact that after issue of the suspension order dated 8.9.2003, Annexure-3, petitioner has not received any supply, impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-4 has been passed. 4. For failure to consider the submission noted above as also the earlier order of the Licensing Authority dated 8.9.2003, Annexure-3, I set aside the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-4 directing the Licensing Authority i.e. S.D.O., Aurangabad to revisit the matter and 3 pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)