IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7260 of 2006 Md.Shamim @ Md.Shamim Ahmad S/o Md. Ramjan, Resident of Rafiganj, 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. S.S.P. Sinha, A.C. to G.P.-17 02/ 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Also perused the counter affidavit filed by Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad supporting the contents of the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3 whereunder PDS licence of the petitioner, bearing No. 8/R/85 has been cancelled. In this connection, petitioner was earlier served with show cause notice, bearing Memo. No. 360 dated 15.4.2006, Annexure-1 asking him to confirm whether he is Md. Shamim @ Tun Khan, who indulged in black marketing of the essential commodities, as has been reported by the Labour Inspector under report dated 11.4.2006 referred to in the show cause notice, Annexure-1. Having received the show cause notice, Annexure-1, petitioner submitted his reply Annexure-2 refuting the allegations found against Tun Khan and 2 asserted that he is not indulging in black marketing of the essential commodities. Under the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3, show cause reply of the petitioner, Annexure-2 has been rejected holding that he is indulging in black marketing of the essential commodities supplied to him for distribution amongst the consumers attached to his shop by supplying the consumers attached to his shop lesser quantity with endorsement of higher quantity on their ration card. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid finding has been recorded by the Licensing Authority without producing any of the consumers before the petitioner, who asserted that petitioner was indulging in black marketing of the essential commodities by supplying lesser quantity of the foodgrain to him and selling the remainder in black market by writing the higher quantity on the ration card. 3. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that name of those who alleged against the petitioner that he was supplying lesser quantity of the foodgrain and writing inflated quantity in the ration card, is indicated in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit as the 3 persons whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A have stated that petitioner is only supplying them with kerosene oil and not foodgrains. 4. From perusal of the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3, it does not appear that any of the consumers, who alleged against the petitioner, was ever produced during the enquiry with liberty to the petitioner to cross-examine the said consumer. 5. The persons named in Annexure-A does not appear to have been named in the impugned order as also produced during the enquiry, as such, while setting aside the impugned order dated 25.5.2006, Annexure-3, I remit back the matter to the Licensing Authority giving him liberty to make available the consumers named in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit for cross-examination by the petitioner on the point that they are being supplied only kerosene oil and not the foodgrains. In case those named in Annexure-A stick to the allegation against the petitioner in his presence as well then to pass appropriate order maintaining the impugned order. 6. Appropriate order in this regard be passed by the Licensing Authority as early as possible, in any case 4 within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before him. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)