JUDGMENT

Madhuresh Prasad, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-respondent.

2. The petitioner, who is a Public Distribution System licensee, has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 22.08.2020 under memo No. 561 whereby and whereunder the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as the "SDO") has cancelled the PDS license of the petitioner bearing PDS license No. 44 of 2017 on the alleged ground of violation of certain provisions of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Targeted Control Order")

3. The brief facts are that the Block Supply Officer, Rahika visited the petitioner's shop on 16.05.2020 to conduct an inspection of his PDS dealership. An inspection report has been submitted in respect of the inspection by the Block Supply Officer, under letter dated 08.06.2020, bearing letter No. 60 to the SDO. Based on this inspection report, the SDO issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 16.06.2020, asking him to reply within 48 hours with respect to 06 allegations which were as follows:-

(i) Shop was found closed.

(ii) The weights and measure license was not valid.

(iii) Notice Board did not display the requisite information.

(iv) Beneficiaries were not being made available the foodgrains on Government determined rates and weight (quantity).

(v) Beneficiaries were being given foodgrains on two months.

(vi) The petitioner was misbehaving with the beneficiaries.

4. The petitioner responded to the said show cause notice under his reply dated 27.06.2020. The SDO, thereafter, on 22.08.2020, has issued the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's PDS license.

5. The petitioner's counsel has submitted that the SDO has proceeded against the petitioner with a pre-conceived intention of cancelling his license. Only 48 hours time was allowed, as per the show cause notice dated 16.06.2020. The inspection report dated 08.06.2020, allegedly submitted by the Block Supply Officer, has not been made available to the petitioner along with show cause notice. Lastly, it is submitted that the order of the SDO takes into consideration complains and statements made by certain beneficiaries forwarded by the Ward Member and Mukhiya as well as the inspection report 16.06.2020 issued by the Block Supply Officer. Copies of none of these documents have made available to the petitioner. The order itself is also cryptic and shows total non- application of mind by the SDO.

6. Earlier, time was granted to the State counsel for filing counter affidavit, on 05.02.2021. By way of last indulgence one week's further time was granted on 24.02.2021 with a clear stipulation that if counter affidavit is not filed, this Court would proceed further presuming that the State has nothing to comment in respect of the averments made in the writ petition. Till today, counter affidavit has not been filed. However, Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned State counsel, has appeared and submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy under the Targeted Control Order. In view of such alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court should refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction. The petitioner, on account of his violation of the provisions of the Targeted Control Oder, has caused great suffering to the beneficiaries, who are poor people, that also at a time when there was general crisis during the global Covid -2019 pandemic.

7. On a consideration of the submission advanced by the parties, this Court would finds that the show cause notice dated 16.06.2020 does not contain copies of the alleged statements of beneficiary supporting allegations against the petitioner as forwarded through the Ward Member(s). It also does not contain a copy of the inspection report dated 08.06.2020 of the Block Supply Officer, based on which, the show cause notice has been issued. The impugned order dated 22.08.2020, however, takes into consideration and i