JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing.

The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order contained in memo no. 07/Aa. dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas cancelling the retail trade licence of the petitioner and also for quashing of the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro in Misc. Case No. 36 of 2017-18, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was granted retail licence no. 13 of 1994 for running a fair price shop by the respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide memo no. 366/Aa. dated 08.11.2016 from the respondent no. 2 alleging therein that a complaint dated 02.11.2016 had been made against him by one Urmila Devi and other 60 card holders making allegation of distributing less quantity of food grains and also for giving threatening to assault by abusing them, when they demanded food grains as per law. The petitioner submitted reply to the said show cause notice denying the allegations against him, however, the respondent no. 2 again issued notice as contained in memo no. 403/Aa. dated 19.12.2016 asking the petitioner to submit clarification on the same allegation as contained in the previous notice. After receiving the second show cause notice, the petitioner submitted reply to the respondent no. 2 on 31.12.2016, however, vide impugned order as contained in memo no. 07/Aa. dated 16.01.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner’s licence no. 13/1994 was cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no. 3 vide Misc. Case No. 36 of 2017-18 which was also dismissed on 14.05.2018. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of cancellation of his trade licence has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner did not spell out as to which order/ terms and conditions of the licence had been violated and, therefore, initiation of proceeding against the petitioner and the cancellation of licence were without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that in respect to the alleged violation under various provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 as well as the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which has been noted in the impugned order dated 16.01.2017, the petitioner was never asked to show cause as would be evident from the notices dated 08.11.2016 and 19.12.2016. The respondent no. 2 has not given any finding as to under which particular term and condition of the licence and/or under which clause of the Unification Order, 1984/the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has been violated. The respondent no. 2 has not taken into consideration the replies given by the petitioner in his defence. Moreover, the appellate court has also not applied its judicial mind in passing the impugned order dated 14.05.2018 and, therefore, both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner filed two replies separately to the show cause notices dated 08.11.2016 and 19.12.2016, however, without any reliable evidence to meet the allegation levelled against him and as such, there was no need to provide personal hearing by the licence issuing authority. It is also submitted that the petitioner had violated various provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 as well as the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is further submitted that the impugned order of cancellation of trade licence has been passed on the complaint lodged by the cardholders