The main legal point established is that the cancellation of a licence must follow the established procedure of law and provide the licensee with an opportunity to be heard, failing which the order of cancellation may be deemed arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

Poonam Srivastav, J.

1. Heard counsel for the Petitioner as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting Respondents.

2. Pleadings have been completed and as agreed between the respective counsel, this writ petition is being decided finally.

3. The order impugned in the instant writ petition is cancellation of the licence granted to the Petitioner for running a fair price shop under Public Distribution System. The allegation is that in an inspection by the Respondent authorities termed as "Operation Achanak", certain irregularities were detected in the fair price shop and also the shop was found closed. The order of suspension was issued which was suspension/showcause notice bearing letter No. 1119 dated 15.09.2004. Two grounds were enumerated for taking action against the fair price shop dealer. Ground No. 1 was that the shop was closed at the time of inspection and second, that a number of irregularities were detected while distribution of the controlled commodities. An order of cancellation was passed and the information was given to the District Supply Officer, vide letter No. 23 dated 17.02.2005.

4. Submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that he has not been given an appropriate opportunity to submit his case and the order of cancellation is against the specific provision of law as well as opposed to the principles of natural justice. It is also brought to my notice by the counsel that the socalled show cause was not served to him and that there were five fair price dealers whose licences were cancelled under the "Operation Achanak" and the information dated 17.02.2005 mentions the name of all those fair price shop dealers whose licences were cancelled simultaneously.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit (Annexure6), which is an order passed in W.P. (C) No. 1500 of 2005 Sagar Singh v. the State of Jharkhand and Ors. dated 11.04.2007. The Order/Letter No. 23 dated 17.02.2005 was quashed in the aforesaid writ petition. Besides, it was also held that the impugned order was passed by the S.D.O. Who is not the licensing authority and, therefore, the order of cancellation is without jurisdiction.

6. In the present case also, the order was passed by the S.D.O. Besides, the so called show cause notice relied upon by the Respondents, is apparently a mere formality. The notice is merely an attempt at the behest of the Respondent to fill up the lacuna, during pendency of the writ petition. It is only to somehow make out a case by issuing show cause notice, there is nothing to substantiate that the notice was served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner has come up with specific assertion that he was not served with any notice whatsoever and the order of cancellation is without any opportunity of hearing.

7. I have also noticed that the ground regarding irregularities is very vague. It has not been specified as to what was the specific irregularities and, therefore, even assuming that if any notice was served, the Petitioner was in no position to defend his case because the socalled irregularities can be one and many in number and, therefore, it is only an eyewash to somehow support the Respondents' case.

8. Assertion on behalf of Respondent No. 4 that the terms and conditions of the licence have been violated is without any substance. I have given careful consideration to the provisions of the Control Orders and the terms and conditions of the licence, order of cancellation as well as taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Counsel, I find that the impugned order is arbitrary and without following the established procedure of law and, therefore, it is liable to be quashed.

9. I have also perused the order dated 11.04.2007 in W.P.(C) No. 1500 of 2005. I am in agreement with the said order. The Petitioner is also entitled to be treated at par with such other licence holders whose licenses were cancelled in the same "Operation Achanak" and the orders of cancellation was quashed in various writ petitions of this Cou