Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. – One of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show-cause issued to the petitioner on 13th of April, 2015 mentioned about five different shortcomings and discrepancies found during inspection conducted on 07.04.2015, whereas the S.D.O. Sadar, Darbhanga, while passing order dated 08.12.2015, has taken into consideration several other discrepancies including allegations levelled by the Block Supply Officer, Hanuman Nagar dated 08.09.2015 of not depositing the amount for the distribution under Antyodaya & PHH.

2. Learned counsel submits that no show-cause or opportunity was provided with regard to the other allegations which have been made as a basis for cancellation of license and, therefore, the action of cancellation is violative of Rule 27(2) of the Rules of the order which is PDS Control Order, 2016 and the earlier PDS Control Order, 2001.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further assailed the order dated 16.06.2017, passed in P.D.S. Appeal No. 05 of 2016. He submits that the aforesaid submissions have not been considered by the appellate authority too.

4. I have considered the submissions. Rule 27(2) of the Control