JUDGMENT :

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State Counsel, both of whom are appearing through virtual mode.

2. The Public Distribution System Licence (hereinafter referred to as “PDS” licence” for brevity) of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub-divisional Officer, Sherghati, under order dated 27.1.2015. Action has been taken on the basis of an inspection done of the petitioner's PDS premises by the Block Suopply Officer Gurua (Gaya) on 10.12.2014 based on certain allegations levelled by some persons. The Sub-divisional Officer after going through the inspection report, served a notice dated 18.12.2014 to the petitioner, wherein five irregularities were alleged;

(i) that the supply between the card holders was not regular.

(ii) the petitioner was not opening his dealership as per the direction issued by the Government and

(iii) that he was opening the dealership as per his own whims.

(iv) The petitioner is also alleged to be misbehaving with the beneficiaries.

(v) The last allegation is that after distribution of the essential commodities for a particular month the petitioner used to make a false entry that he has made supply for two months.

3. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to this notice. The same is Annexure 4 of the writ petition. The petitioner has denied all the allegations. He has asserted that other than some oral complaints made by some individuals there is no documentary evidence in support of the allegations. Even the inspection report, which has been considered by the Sub-divisional Officer, does not take into consideration any documentary evidence to support the allegations. In respect of some individuals, who has supported the allegations against the petitioner, he has stated that they are members of an extremist outfit and have been making illegitimate demands from him since before. Three complaints in this regard dated 17.11.2014, 8.12.2014 and 22.12.2014 have earlier been submitted by the petitioner, reference of which is to be found in the petitioner’s reply.

4. The Sub-divisional Officer has proceeded to cancel the PDS licence of the petitioner under his order dated 27.1.2015. The order records the allegation as per the notice dated 18.12.2014. It takes note of the statements of some beneficiaries of the petitioner’s dealership. In respect of the allegation that the petitioner was making entries in the cards of the beneficiaries in excess of supply made, no documentary evidence has been produced or considered. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sherghati has proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s PDS licence for the reason that the explanation/reply submitted by the petitioner/licensee is unsatisfactory. The specific finding of the Sub-divisional Officer is being reproduced:-

^^cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds lca/ak esa fodzsrk ls Li”Vhdj.k dh ekax dh xbZ A ----- ----------- ---------- ijUrq foØsrk dk Li”Vhdj.k larks”kizn ugh gSA^^

5. The conclusion of the Sub-divisional Officer is vague, shows non application of mind and is based on the petitioner’s alleged inability to satisfy the Sub-divisional Officer regarding his innocence rather than recording a finding that the allegations have been found established on certain grounds.

6. This Court would observe that onus of establishing the allegation was on the State/allegationist. On some material the charges were required to be established.

7. Paragraph 12 of the Control Order, 2011 prescribes remedy of appeal against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer cancelling the licence. The District Magistrate was the appellate forum. The petitioner had approached the District Magistrate by an appeal. The same was also rejected under order dated 25.6.2015.

8. Rather than remedying the irregularities committed by the Sub-divisional Officer, the District Magistrate has concurred with the same. The District Magistrate was of the opinion that the explanation submitted by the petitioner were without any evidence, false and concealing the evidence.