Cancellation of license should be based on sufficient evidence and application of mind by the authorities, and lack of specific consumer complaints and supporting evidence can lead to the restoration of the license.

Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader No.6 for the State.

2. The petitioner, a licensee under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 enforced vide Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Control Order’), is aggrieved by the order dated 9.11.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer- cum- Licensing Authority under ‘the Control Order’ whereby the licence of the petitioner bearing No.01 of 2007 for running a shop under the public distribution system stands cancelled and which order stands affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. the Collector, Nalanda when the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner bearing Supply Appeal No.01 of 2012 was dismissed on 6.8.2013. Copies of the orders impugned in this writ petition are placed at Annexures 3 and 4 respectively to the writ petition.

3. The facts of the case briefly stated is that following an enquiry conducted by the District Level Committee on 30.9.2011that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice bearing Memo no.1074 dated 27.10.2011 setting out seven charges, constituting irregularities under the order and requiring a response from the petitioner, a copy of which is placed at Annexure-1. According to the petitioner, he filed his response on 8.11.2011 vide Annexure-2 but such position is disputed by the respondents and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order impugned dated 9.11.2011 placed at Annexure-3 in absence of any contest by the petitioner cancelled the licence on the alleged irregularities. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed and hence this writ petition.

4. Whereas it is the contention of Mr. Ojha that the materials relied upon by the respondents for cancellation of licence were never supplied to the petitioner nor his show cause has been dealt with either by the Licensing Authority or the appellate authority but his arguments have been contested by Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that in the records there is no show cause filed by the petitioner and it was for the petitioner to prove the same. According to Mr. Pandey since the allegations went un-rebutted hence it would be deemed to have been accepted and the matters of trade and commerce are not akin to service law where service of an enquiry report is a mandatory requirement. It is the contention of learned counsel for the State that since the petitioner has admitted to the irregularities regarding maintenance of the notice board as well as maintenance of stocks in the house other than the sale premises hence these admissions are sufficient for cancellation of his licence. It is submitted that it was for the petitioner to prove before the Licensing Authority as well as the appellate authority regarding issuance of cash-memos as well as his grievance relating to distribution of lesser amount of kerosene oil which he has failed to do so and hence the order impugned requires no interference. He further submits that since the enquiry report was never demanded by the petitioner hence he cannot take up this plea before this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

6. The filing of the show cause reply by the petitioner is a disputed issue of fact and although the copy of the reply placed at Annexure-2 demonstrates its receipt by some authority on 8.11.2011 but this fact is being contested by the counsel for the respondents. Nonetheless it is a matter of record that 7 allegations were set out against the petitioner based upon an enquiry conducted by the District Level Committee on 30.9.2011. It is also a matter of record that this enquiry report was never supplied to the petitioner. Thus even if the respondents contest the filing of the show cause but the stand taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority was in tune with the show cause and he has denied ea