1. Heard.

2. The counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing a particular show cause notice or without issuing any show cause against the proposed cancellation on the strength of the material collected subsequently the concerned S.D.O. has cancelled the licence. It is also contended that the order is patently without jurisdiction because no enquiry was made in the matter and the grounds which were projected in the show cause notice dated 13.12.2001 did not project any ground for taking any legal action against the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that notice no. 307 dated 13.12.2001 was comprehensive and under the said notice proper information was given to the petitioner. I have heard the parties.

5. From the notice dated 13.12.2001 (annexure-2), it appears that a complaint was made to the S.D.O., Patna by he Supply Inspector that at the time of inspection of the shop the petitioner had raised the certain objections or made resentment saying that the shops of the notified area were only being inspected and the other shops were not inspected. In addition to it he s