JUDGMENT

1. The instant case has been taken up for consideration through the mode of Video conferencing in view of the prevailing situation on account of COVID 19 Pandemic, requiring social distancing.

2. The present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.09.2011 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa, whereby and whereunder the license of the public distribution system shop of the petitioner bearing License No. 17/2018 has been cancelled as also the appellate order dated 30.08.2017 passed by the learned Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Saharsa and the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, whereby and whereunder the Supply Revision Case No. 58 of 2017, has been dismissed by an order dated 04.12.2019.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.05.2011, the Commissioner, Koshi Division had constituted a team for inspection of the PDS shop of the petitioner and upon inspection certain irregularities were found, whereafter an inspection report was submitted to the licensing authority. A show cause was then issued to the petitioner on 25.08.2011 inter alia mentioning therein the various irregularities having been found to have been committed by the petitioner. The petitioner had then filed his show cause reply dated 08.09.2011, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa by an order dated 17.09.2011 had cancelled the PDS shop license of the petitioner by a cryptic order. The petitioner had filed an appeal, however, the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 leading to the petitioner challenging the same by filing a revision petition bearing Supply Revision Case No. 58 of 2017 but the same was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 04.12.2019.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri N.K. Agarwal has submitted that the order dated 17.09.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa is a cryptic and unreasoned order. Reference in this connection has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. The State of UP & Ors., reported in (1970) 1 SCC 764. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 1999 volume 1 BLJ 548 to submit that any consideration by the appellate authority cannot cure the defect in the original order of the licensing authority in case the same is unreasoned and stands vitiated on account of non-application of mind.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State Shri Alok Ranjan, AC to AAG-5 has submitted that in case this Court feels that the impugned order dated 17.09.2011 is an unreasoned order, then the same can be set aside and the matter can be remanded back to the original licensing authority for reconsideration, however, he submits that another PDS dealer might have been appointed during the interregnum period.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials on record. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 17.09.2011, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa, on the very of it is not only cryptic and does not deal with the defence taken by the petitioner in his show cause reply but no cogent clear and succinct reasons have been furnished in the impugned order dated 17.09.2011 in support of the conclusion arrived at to cancel the PDS license of the petitioner, hence the same stands vitiated in the eyes of law. In this connection reference be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496, paragraphs No. 15, 24, 25, 47 and 48 whereof are reproduced herein below :-

"15. This Court always opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority a