D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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;

5. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 any condition of the licence was violated and if so, which were the conditions. In fact, it does not specify what were the irregularities found in course of inspection which prompted the Sub Divisional Officer to cancel the licence of the petitioner.

10. In this regard, it is relevant to quote Clause 11 of the foresaid Unification Order, which reads as under : Suspension and cancellation of licence:

(1) If any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against under the Essential Commodiites Act, 1955) Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of lthe Licensing authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such cancellation or suspension;

(2) No order or cancellation shall be made under this Clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without iving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee"

11. It is apparent from the above that no order of cancellation could be passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to explain as to why order of proposed cancellation licence should not be passed.

Notice (Annexure 1) as issued to the petitioner is not in compliance with the provisions lays down in Clause 11 of the Unification Order. Further more, the impugned order of cancellation also does not indicate any reason assigned by the SDO, nor any finding to suggest that the petitioner violated the conditions of the licence or any Control Order.

12. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Agarwal, the impugned order of the SDO is a non speaking order passed without application of judicial mind and without assigning reasons for cancelling the petitioners licence. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority also suffers from the same vice in as much as there is no discussion of the factual position of the petitioners case, nor any statement as to what condition the petitioner violated so as to warrant extreme step of cancellation of licence.

13. In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexures 3 and 5) are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioners retail licence after complying with the requisite formalities in accordance with law.

Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the respondents.