Per Shree Chandrashekhar, J.: - Writ petition was filed seeking quashing of order dated 11.07.2005 whereby licence no. 7/2005 pertaining to Retail fair price shop granted to the respondent was cancelled. A further prayer for quashing of order dated 17.08.2011 in E.C. Act Appeal No. 81R15/200506 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was also made. By the impugned order dated 05.12.2012 the writ petition was allowed and order dated 11.07.2005 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Ranchi and order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi were quashed holding that the cancellation was wholly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 11.05.2005 a licence bearing no. 7/2005 was issued in the name of the respondent and articles for distribution through the Retail fair price shop were allotted to the respondent. However, without issuing any show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing, the licence granted to the respondent was cancelled on 11.07.2005 by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Ranchi on the ground that earlier a licence vide Licence no. 97/1984 was issued in the name of husband of the respondent. The respondent approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4603 of 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 16.11.2005 with an observation that the respondent would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Accordingly, the respondent filed E.C. Act Appeal No. 81R15/200506 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed on 17.08.2011. In these facts, the respondent preferred W.P.(C) No. 6006 of 2011 which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 05.12.2012.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.

4. Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State of Jharkhand has submitted that at the time when the Licence no. 7/2005 was issued to the respondent on 11.05.2005 admittedly, marriage of the respondent was subsisting. The matrimonial case being MTS56/2010 was filed by the respondent seeking a decree of divorce much after the licence of the respondent was cancelled on 11.07.2005. It is submitted that in terms of the Government Notification more than one licence is not granted to the members of one family and since a licence in the name of the husband of the respondent was already issued vide Licence no. 97/1984, on 11.05.2005 erroneously another licence was issued in the name of the respondent which has rightly been cancelled on 11.07.2005. It is further submitted that a licence in the present case has been issued to the respondent under Bihar/Jharkhand Trade Articles (Licence Unification)Order, 1984 for the Jan Vitran Pranali Retail Shop for which foodgrains and other items are supplied on subsidized price and thus, the licence was in the nature of privilege granted to the respondent and while so, the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the order of cancellation dated 11.07.2005 on the ground of violation of the provisions under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel has further submitted that in so far as, the plea taken by the respondent that the licence has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to her is concerned, it has been curred at the appellate stage when the respondent preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.

5. As against the above, Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that before the Writ Court the Circular relied upon by the appellants was not produced and therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly observed that no provision of law has been shown under which the respondent, being wife of the licence holder can be deprived of the right to