IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19911 of 2010 1. Hemant Kumar Das S/O Late Phahim Ravidas R/O Vill.- Gorhi, Pachma, P.S.- Korha, Distt.- Katihar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary To The Government Department Of Food & Civil Supplies, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Katihar 3. The District Supply Officer, Katihar 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar 5. The Block Supply Officer, Korha, Katihar 6. The Block Supply Inspector, Korha, Katihar ----------- 5 08.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak, learned A.C. to G.P. 11 for the State The petitioner is a dealer and Licence holder under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Order”), as notified by the State of Bihar vide G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.02.2007. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Katihar whereby the Licensing Authority considering the allegations set out against the petitioner, has been pleased to cancel the same in purported exercise of power vested under the Order. The facts of the case giving rise to the present writ petition in brief is that on certain complaint being made by some card holders, the matter was got enquired into by the Block Supply Officer, Korha and considering the report submitted by him, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar by order bearing Memo No. 224 dated 12.04.2007 was pleased to suspend the licence of the petitioner in exercise of powers vested under Clause 7(ii) of the Order. Subsequently, the matter was re-enquired by the Supply Inspector who by a subsequent letter dated 23.08.2007 as contained in Annexure-D to the 2 counter affidavit recommended for revocation of the suspension order of the petitioner inter alia on grounds of having exceeded the maximum prescribed period of 90 days as provided under Clause 7(v) of the Order. The request of the Supply Inspector was refused by the District Supply Officer by his communication dated 31.10.2007 placed at Annexure-E and he referred the matter to the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar requiring the Licensing Authority to proceed in accordance with law. Following the aforesaid development the Licensing Authority vide impugned order bearing Memo No. 848 dated 19.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition has been pleased to cancel the licence of the petitioner in purported exercise of power vested under Clause 7(ii) of the Order. In normal circumstances, this Court would have relegated the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy available under the Order but considering the fact that the impugned order has been passed inter alia also on the opinion expressed by the District Magistrate, Katihar, the appellate authority, in his order dated 19.10.2007 as is also manifest from the impugned order, this Court has proceeded to consider the case on its own merits. Undoubtedly, the Licensing Authority is vested with the powers under the Order not only to suspend the licence of a dealer but also to cancel the same but then it is only after due observance of the procedure provided under the Order. Even when the petitioner in paragraph 16 of his writ petition has specifically stated that the impugned order was passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to respond to the same, a bald denial has been made in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit mentioning therein 3 that the petitioner had been noticed and he had submitted explanation, without enclosing either the notice of show cause against proposed cancellation or the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The materials available on the record of the proceedings manifests that the Licensing Authority has simply proceeded on the basis of the allegation set out against the petitioner and for which his licence had already been suspended. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order as to whether any such opportunity was granted to the petitioner or any show cause against proposed cancellation was served on him as mandated under Claus 7(iv) of the Order. In absence of necessary documents rebutting the specific statement of the petitioner as made in this regard, in paragraph 16 of the writ petition, the same would go uncontroverted. That being the position, the impugned order having been passed in contravention of Clause 7(iv) of the Order and without affording opportunity to the petitioner against proposed cancellation and taking into consideration that by operation of law as provided under Clause 7(v) of the Order, the licence of the petitioner stood restored on/or before 12.07.2007, the impugned order dated 19.12.2007 as contained in Annexure-1, cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J.)