IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11652 of 2010 1. Kapildeo Prasad S/O Nand Lal Prasad @ Late Nand Lal Yadav R/O Vill Utali Bazar Maha Bigha, P.S.Tankuppa, Distt-Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector Gaya 3. The Subdivisional Officer Sadar, Gaya 4. The Additional District Supply Officer Gaya 5. The Block Supply Officer Sadar, Gaya ---------------------------------- 4. 30.8.2011. Heard Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, learned Assisting counsel to AAG-7 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.6.2010 Passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya in Supply Appeal Case No.35 of 2008, as contained in Annexure-4, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 20.3.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gaya as contained in Annexure-2 canceling the Licence No.8 of 1989 granted to the petitioner under the Public Distribution System, , has been confirmed. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a very short issue. It is contended that whereas the first order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya manifests that the appeal after being taken up on 11.6.2010, had been 2 posted for hearing on 18.6.2010 but for the reasons only to be explained by the District Magistrate, Gaya, he without any notice to the counsel appearing for the petitioner and without recalling the first order dated 11.6.2010 posting the hearing to 18.6.2010, has proceeded to adjudicate the matter and has dismissed the appeal by mentioning in the order that the petitioner was heard which is not the correct position. Although a specific averment to this effect made by the petitioner in para-9 of the writ petition has been denied by the respondents in paragraph-9 of the counter affidavit but the counter affidavit has been sworn by the Block Supply Officer, Sadar, Gaya and who does not explain the source of the statement, as to whether the statement made in para-9 was on the basis of the records or on the basis of knowledge provided to him by the adjudicating authority The stand of the respondent also cannot be upheld in view of the fact that the first order dated 11.6.2010 adjourning the appeal to 18.6.2010 continues to appear in the order sheet and was not recalled by the District Magistrate, Gaya. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court has no option but to quash the order dated 3 11.6.2010 passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya in Appeal Case No.35 of 2008, whereby the appeal was dismissed. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Gaya to hear and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the matter is quite old, it is expected that an order in this regard would be passed expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)