BRAHMDEO RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 13.09.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur-cum-Licensing Authority, as contained in Annexure-5, by which the licence of the petitioner for running a shop under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has been cancelled.

(2.) At the time of hearing of this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points which stand enumerated in the paragraph nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of this writ application. First point is that the licensing authority has relied upon an enquiry report as well as the statements of the consumers which was recorded against him, however, it has been stated in clear terms in the aforesaid paragraphs that at no point of time either a copy of such report or the statements of such consumers were supplied to him before taking a final decision so that a proper reply to the show cause notice could have been given by the petitioner. Second issue raised by the petitioner is that so far consumers of Repura Village are concerned their names having been detached from the petitioner's licence i.e., about ten months ago and attached to some other PDS dealers and, as such, show cause notice and decision of cancellation on the aforesaid ground would be bad in law. Learned counsel has made a reference in this regard to paragraph no. 4 of his reply to the show cause notice which appended as Annexure-4 to this writ application and has further submitted that even his reply has not been considered by the licensing authority while passing the final order.

(3.) Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and copy of the enquiry report as well as the statements of the complainants/consumers have been appended as Annexure-A series but so far as the allegation of the petitioner to the extent that those were not supplied to him have been evaded to be answered. Only submission to that regard, which stands recorded in the paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit, is that the petitioner should have asked for any paper on document if that was felt necessary by him for giving a proper reply.