S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 19.08.2009 in R.M.A. No. 57 of 2008 -09, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE petitioner was granted licence vide Licence No. 59 of 1991 for running a PDS shop. On 06.06.2008, an inspection was carried when the PDS shop of the petitioner was found closed. Some of the cardholders who were allegedly present there gave statements that they were either not given foodgrains or they were given only kerosene oil. It was found that on the display board outside the PDS shop of the petitioner, details were given which did not correspond to the statements given by the witnesses. Accordingly, a show -cause notice dated 28.06.2008 was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner responded by filling reply dated 16.07.2008, denying the allegations made by the witnesses. The petitioner asserted that on 06.06.2008, he had gone to lift the foodgrains from godown of the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at Raghunathpur and on the same day by 3 p.m. he returned back. After considering the reply of the petitioner, vide order dated 22.07.2008, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled and the appeal preferred by the petitioner also stood dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009. Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the allegation levelled by few persons who were allegedly present at the time of inspection on 06.06.2008, the licence of the petitioner was first suspended vide order dated 28.06.2008 and after the petitioner filed his reply to the show -cause notice, the licence was cancelled vide order dated 22.07.2008. It is submitted that the procedure adopted by the authority was erroneous. The defence taken by the petitioner was not considered by the Sub -Divisional Officer and the Appellate authority has also ignored the error committed by the Sub -Divisional Officer.
(3.) AS against the above, Mr. Sumir Prasad, the learned S.C. I appearing for the respondent -State of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection that there is a provision of revision for challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority which the petitioner has not availed of and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is further submitted that on the basis of the statements given by the cardholders, show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering the reply of the petitioner, the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled and thus, the procedure adopted by the Sub -Divisional Officer is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that two authorities have held against the petitioner and therefore, no interference is required in the present matter.;