ORDER

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the order dated 10.12.2022 passed by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa in Supply Revision Case No. 27/2022, preferred by one consumer and beneficiary of petitioner's PDS shop although he has no such locus, whereby and where-under the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa, in a most arbitrary and malafide manner, cancelled the PDS license No.451/2016 of petitioner by way of setting- aside the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Collector, Saharsa in Supply Appeal Case No. 02/2021 by which learned Collector, Saharsa, has been pleased to set aside the order dated 09.02.2021 contained in Memo No.500-2 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa, cancelling the P.D.S. license of the petitioner with immediate effect in an unlawful manner, against the principles of Natural Justice as well as in complete violation of the well-settled laws and judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, setting aside the order dated 09.02.2021 contained in Memo No.500-2 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa, cancelling the P.D.S. license of the petitioner in an unlawful manner, against the Principles of Natural Justice as well as in complete violation of the well-settled laws and judicial pronouncements of this Hon'ble Court.

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent authority concerned to restore the petitioner's P.D.S. licence forthwith which is only source of livelihood of the petitioner. iv) And/or any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa (Respondent No. 2) is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel has stated that the authority concerned i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar Saharsa, District Saharsa (Respondent No. 4) basing on the enquiry report submitted by the Block Supply Officer, Sonbarsa, District Saharsa (Respondent No. 6) has issued show cause notice to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 has passed the order cancelling the PDS license of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner aggrieved by the order of cancellation of the license has approached the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 3) by way of Supply Appeal Case No. 02 of 2021 and the Appellate Authority was pleased to set aside the order of cancellation dated 09.02.2021 vide Memo No. 500-2 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa (Respondent No. 04). Thereafter, the respondent no. 7 herein has filed a supply revision before the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa (Respondent No. 2) challenging the orders of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 02 of 2021 and the said revision was numbered as Supply Revision Case No. 27 of 2022. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa has passed the impugned order on 10.12.2022 setting aside the order of the Collector passed in Supply Appeal Case No. 02 of 2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa ought to have dismissed the revision filed by the respondent No. 7 herein, as he is only a consumer/beneficiary of the petitioner shop and, therefore, he had no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Collector in Supply Appeal Case No. 02 of 2021. Learned counsel has stated that the consumer/beneficiary cannot be termed as an aggrieved person and it is only the aggrieved person who can file a revision. That the authority concerned without adverting to the above fac