VIKASH JAIN, J.:–Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents through video conference.

2. The present writ petition has been filed “for challenging the order dated 18.09.20219 passed by SDO Sadar Gaya fully contained in Memo No. 872 whereby and whereunder the License no. 73/2016 was suspended observing therein that the show cause reply filed by the petitioner is not found satisfactory.”

3. Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure-3) on two grounds, namely, (i) that the petitioner’s show cause has been rejected by a non-speaking order stating simply that the reply was found to be unsatisfactory; and (ii) that the license of the petitioner has been suspended with reference to Rule 27 (ii) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, whereas the said Rule does not contemplate suspension of license.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard. As far as rejection of show cause is concerned, it is submitted that the same was not found satisfactory based on materials on record. As regards the suspension of li