IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15555 of 2006 Ram Lakhan Singh, s/o Late Deoratan Singh, Resident of Dalkarma, P.S. Barun, District Aurangabad… …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Aurangabad, 3. The sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad Sadar… …Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, For the State : JC to AAG-5 ………….. 3 20.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the S.D.O., Aurangabad Sadar, cancelling the licence of the petitioner granted for dealership of Public Distribution System (PDS) under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and also the appellate order passed by the Collector, Aurangabad on 5.9.2006 in Misc. Case No.57/2006, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the petitioner has submitted show cause, original 2 order has been passed without consideration of the same in a mechanical manner only stating in one line that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the licence. Similarly, the appellate order, affirming the original order, has also been passed in a mechanical manner, only stating that the show cause filed by the petitioner was not satisfactory. Learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed in CWJC No.3939 of 1989 (M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and other) on 6th January, 1999, wherein it has been held that non-consideration of averments made in the show cause is a serious lacuna in exercise of jurisdiction and indicates non-application of mind. This Court also in C.W.J.C. No.12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and others) and analogues cases, has allowed the identical writ petitions on the ground that the impugned orders, cancelling the licence being non-speaking one and passed in a mechanical manner without consideration of the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioner clearly indicate towards non-application of mind by the 3 concerned authority. Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that opportunity of show cause has been given to the petitioner, however, he is unable to show that there has been consideration of the same. In above view of the matter, this writ application is allowed, the impugned order dated 9.3.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.3, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Sadar to consider the same afresh in accordance with law considering the show cause filed by the petitioner after giving opportunity of being heard. However, since the order has been passed in the presence of the parties, it is expected that the petitioner would approach the authority along with a copy of this order within eight weeks. In such a case, respondent no.3, i.e., the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Sadar shall pass necessary order in accordance with law within two months thereafter. It is also made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioner for resumption of supplies automatically. The same would depend upon 4 the final decision of the authority concerned. This writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)