Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 23.2.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (respondent no. 2) whereby the petitioner’s retail licence granted to him under the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification & Control ) Order, 1984, has been cancelled.

Grievance of the petitioner is also against the order passed by the appellate authority dated 3.6.2008 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of cancellation of licence passed by the SDO, has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was granted a PDS licence under the Unification Order 1984. On 28.11.2006, an inspection of the shop premises of the petitioner was carried out by a team of officers, including the SDO, Chas . On 4.12.2006 the petitioner was served with a notice under the order of the SDO intimating the factual position found at the time of inspection carried out in the petitioner’s shop and also directed the petitioner to file his explanations.

The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter by the impugned order dated 23.2.2007 (annexure 3), the petitioner was informed that his retail licence was cancelled by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. 3 The petitioner being aggrieved, filed an appeal against the impugned order before the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, Bokaro. But by the impugned order dated 3.6.2008 petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. 4 Aggrieved with the aforesaid two orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition raising the following grounds:

(i) that the cancellation of petitioner’s licence is arbitrary, capricious and violative of principles of natural justice and against the procedure laid down under clause 11 of the Unification order in as much as the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to defend his case ;

(ii) that the impugned order of the cancellation is a nonspeaking order and no reason has been assigned for cancellation of the licneces;

Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the show cause notice ( Annexure 1) would explain that on a bare perusal of the notice it is manifest that the notice simply indicates the position found by the SDO at the time of inspection of the petitioner’s shop and it does not indicate that any infirmity was found which could suggest violation of any of the terms and conditions of the licence, or violation of any Control Order.

6. Referring next to the order of cancellation of the licence (annexure 3), learned counsel submits that on perusal of the order, it would be evident that the SDO has merely recorded the submission made by the petitioner and after recording the same has abruptly recorded his verdict of cancellation of the licence without recording any reasons as to why the licence was cancelled.

7. Upon the ground stated above, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of both the impugned orders and also for a direction to the respondents to restore petitioner’s licence

8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand while inviting attention to the relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit, would explain that on inspection of the petitioner’s shop, several discrepancies were found in respect of stock as also sale of food-grains. In fact, the food-grains was seized from a rickshaw at the time when it was being carried away illegally from the shop. Learned counsel adds further that food-grains were meant for distribution to persons below the poverty line under the Antyodhya scheme. Upon finding the discrepancy, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his reply to the show cause notice, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly cancelled the petitioner’s retail licence.

9. From perusal of the show cause notice ( annexure 1), and as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the contents thereof are nothing but a copy of the inspection report. The purported show cause notice does not indicate as to whether