Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) Both these writ petitions have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 26.4.2016 as contained in Memo No. 128 [Annexure-7 to W.P.(C) No. 2995 of 2016] and Memo No. 129 [Annexure-4 to W.P.(C) No. 3376 of 2016] passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby, the petitioners' licenses for running the PDS shops have been cancelled. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petitions, is that the licenses for running the PDS shops were granted to the petitioners. However, on the basis of certain complaints received against them, their PDS licenses were suspended vide Memos Nos. 41 and 44 respectively, both dated 19.2.2016, and show cause notices were issued to them for cancellation of their PDS licenses. The petitioners submitted their respective replies to the said show cause notices denying the allegations levelled against them. However, the PDS licensees of the petitioners were cancelled by the respondent No. 3 vide the impugned orders contained in Memo Nos. 128 & 129 respectively, both dated 26.4.2016, which gives rise to filing of the present writ petitions.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the date of issuance of the PDS licenses to the petitioners, they duly followed each and every rule/regulation and never violated any term and condition of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Order 1984']. It is further submitted that most of the complainants were not the card holders and they made false allegations against the petitioners due to village politics. On the contrary, several villagers and the card holders also informed the respondent No. 3 that the allegations levelled against the petitioners are false and baseless. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts much emphasis on his argument that after suspension of the petitioners' PDS licenses and issuance of the show cause notices to them vide Memos Nos. 41 & 44 respectively, both dated 19.2.2016, they filed their respective replies within ten days. However, the respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned orders dated 26.4.2016, relied upon the enquiry reports of the Block Development Officer, Manika dated 29.3.2016 and 2.3.2016 respectively. Though the said enquiry reports were prepared after issuance of the show cause notices to the petitioners and submission of their respective replies before the respondent No. 3, however, the said enquiry reports dated 29.3.2016 and 2.3.2016 were never served upon the petitioners so as to enable them to properly respond to the allegations made therein against them. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned orders dated 26.4.2016 have been passed by the respondent No. 3 in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the same are liable to be quashed.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have got alternative/efficacious remedy of appeal under the provisions of the Order, 1984. It is further submitted that the petitioners were given due opportunity of hearing by issuing the show cause notices to them. The respondent No. 3, after due consideration of the replies submitted by the petitioners, has passed the impugned orders cancelling their PDS licenses, as several complaints were received against them regarding commission of irregularities in distribution of foodgrains among the beneficiaries, misbehaving with the card holders and demanding money for issuing ration cards etc. The enquiry reports submitted by the Block Development Officer, Manika contain the statements of several beneficiaries alleging commission of various irregularities by the petitioners in distribution of foodgrains among the beneficiaries.;