IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12729 of 2006 Ali Raj Mian, son of late Faridan Mian, resident of village Bahuarwa, P.S. Jogapatti, District West Champaran …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar, District West Champaran at Bettiah …… Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate For the State : M/s J.P. Karn, AAG 4 A.K. Dubey, AC to AAG 4 -------- 7 12.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.06.2002 contained in Annexure 3 passed by the licensing authority, whereby the licence of the petitioner granted for running a Public Distribution System shop has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises only one issue at the time of hearing of this case that the show-cause filed by him has not been considered in proper perspective by the licensing authority while passing the impugned order of cancellation of his licence rather the same has been passed in a 2 mechanical manner without application of mind. It is submitted that, as per the direction, a show-cause was submitted by the petitioner. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was given ample opportunity for filing a show-cause and after considering the same the original authority has passed the order under challenge. I do not find any force in the submission raised by learned counsel for the State. From bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the original authority, it appears that it only speaks that the show-cause filed by the petitioner is not sufficient which would be apparent from the statement of certain persons recorded at the time of inspection/inquiry. However, in view of the stands taken in Annexure 2, i.e., show-cause filed by the petitioner, it does not appear that the grounds raised have been considered in proper perspective and the order appears to be passed in a mechanical manner. 3 In M/s Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others (1999(1) Bihar Law Judgments, 548) a Division Bench of this Court has held that any order visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order being challenged, will not be in a position to know the reason which has led the authority in passing the order. Thereafter, in long line of decisions, this Court has set aside the order that have been passed in mechanical manner. It would be also pertinent to refer the decision rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and its analogous cases. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order in its present form cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 3 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the original authority for taking fresh decision by recording a 4 reasoned order in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. However, it is made clear that this order would not entitle the petitioner for resumption of supplies automatically as the same would depend upon the outcome of the order which would be passed by the licensing authority. Since this order is being passed in presence of the petitioner let the petitioner produce a certified copy of this order before the concerned authority within eight weeks otherwise it would be open for the authority concerned to take a decision even in absence of the petitioner. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)