Judgment:
Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. The petitioner is a licensee for distribution of grains under the Public Distribution System. On certain inspection and allegation, while suspending his licence, a proceeding for cancellation of his licence was initiated by the Subdivisional Officer, Dumraon, district - Buxar. The petitioner responded by filing a detailed show cause. The licensing authority, who is a statutory authority and who had issued the notice and to whom the show cause was filed, referred the matter to the Block Supply Officer for his opinion. The Block Supply Officer made enquiries as to the defence of the petitioner and the allegation against him and gave an opinion adverse to the petitioner. On the opinion being so filed, as apparent from the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer dated 01.11.2007 (Annexure-3 to the writ application), the Subdivisional Officer, without disclosing the said report to the petitioner, merely accepts the report and the opinion of the Block Supply Officer and cancels the licence of the petitioner. Petitioner then prefers a statutory appeal before the learned Collector, Buxar. The Collector, Buxar dismissed the appeal by his order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure-4). In the appeal, he notes that principles of natural justice have been complied. Petitioner was heard. Reports were adverse to the petitioner and, as such, the licence was rightly cancelled. These two orders are under challenge on ground of procedural infirmity.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
3. So far as principles of natural justice are concerned, it is not merely hearing a party before passing an order adverse to him. The hearing has to be a fair hearing. There are two important aspects which should be kept in mind. First, all materials, which are before the officer concerned on which the decision is to be based, must be disclosed to the party concerned. Secondly, the authority has to apply his own independent mind to the issues in question. He cannot take a decision merely because someone has opined one way or the other. On both these counts, the impugned order of Subdivisional Officer cannot be sustained.
4. From the facts noted above, it would be seen that the Subdivisional Officer referred the matter for enquiry and opinion of the Block Supply Officer assuming he could have done so. Once the report and the opinion of the Block Supply Officer were received, it was incumbent upon the Subdivisional Officer to disclose the same to the petitioner and give him an opportunity to demonstrate that the report and the opinion were incorrect in material particulars. It is only when this is disclosed and such an opportunity is granted can principles of natural justice can be said to have been applied. This principle has been well settled by series of decisions including that of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. : (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727. That having not been done, the order cannot be sustained.
5. Again it must be remembered that the Subdivisional Officer is a statutory authority exercising statutory powers which are quasi judicial in nature. In a quasi judicial proceeding, one has to be careful and be wary of foreign intervention. Opinion of third party without participation of the delinquent cannot be sought for and acted upon. The quasi judicial authority has to take a decision on his own. He has to apply his own mind to the facts and allegation and consider the validity or correctness of the defence. This is also lacking in the present case.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer as affirmed by the Collector suffers from gross procedural infirmities and cannot be sustained. They are accordingly, quashed. The writ application is allowed.