- (1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of the Respondent no.3, contained in Memo no.288/Aa dated 12th June, 2010, whereby Public Distribution System Licence granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. It has been stated that the licence of public distribution system was given to the petitioner by the competent authority and he has not violated any terms of the licence or any statutory order and the cancellation of his licence is wholly arbitrary and unwarranted. It has been submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he had submitted his reply, but even the reply has not been discussed and considered by the licensing authority and the impugned order has been passed, cancelling his licence arbitrarily without assigning any speaking reason.
(2.) Learned G.P.I, appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition and submitted that the licence of public distribution system was given to the petitioner in violation of the prescribed circular and the guidelines issued by the Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Jharkhand. The licence was granted in excess than the permissible limit. The Deputy Development CommissionercumAdditional Collector, Palamau had found that the licence was granted in contravention of the laws and the guidelines issued by the department and on that basis notice was issued to the licence holder to explain and produce the document in support of his licence. However, the licence holder failed to file satisfactory explanation and did not produce cogent evidence in support of legality of his licence. 2Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner's licence along with large number of similar licences has been cancelled by a printed order by giving different memo numbers without discussing the show cause reply filed by the petitioner. The printed order has some blank columns, which have been filled in by hand, giving names, number of licence, memo number, date etc. There is no consideration of the reply of the petitioner and there is no application of mind of the licensing authority in issuing the order. It is well settled that once the licence is granted to a person, he acquires valuable right. Such right cannot be infringed upon or taken away in a casual manner, as has been done in the instant case.
(3.) For the reasons aforesaid. The impugned order of the licensing authority dated 12th June, 2010 is hereby quashed. This writ petition is allowed. It is made clear that this order does not imped the licensing authority in passing any order in the matter in accordance with law.;