Full Judgment
11. 01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2003 passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Rosera, Samastipur(respondent no.
4) as contained in Annexure 5, whereby his licence granted under Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 has been cancelled and also the appellate order dated 29.07.2006 passed by the Collector, respondent no.
3) as contained in Annexure 6 in Miscellaneous Case No. 682 of 2003 dismissing the appeal and affirming the original order. At the time of hearing of this application, issues have been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the 2 licensing authority has passed the order of cancellation without assigning any cogent reason and even without considering the reply to the show-cause notice filed on behalf of the petitioner. The only reason which appears to have been assigned is that the same has not been found satisfactory. It is further contended that the appellate authority should have remitted back the matter on this ground alone but has failed to do so. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that the appellate authority has considered the material in detail and upheld the order passed by the licensing authority. However, I find force in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is well settled that any order passed by the authority visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order being challenged, would not be in a position to know the reason which led the authority in passing the order. It is also well settled that the error or defect committed by the licensing authority, being an original authority, in passing the impugned order cannot be cured at the appellate or 3 revisional stage. In the present case also, since the impugned order appears to have been passed in a be a mechanical manner without considering the reply to the show-cause notice, the same would be in teeth of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s Umesh Chandra Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1999(1) B.L.J., 548 as well as the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh v. The State of Bihar and others) and its analogous cases 11.07.2011 holding that non- consideration of the averment made in the reply to the show-cause notice would be a serious lacuna in the impugned order. It is also well settled that the error or defect committed by the licensing authority cannot be cured at the appellate or revisional stage. As a result, this writ application is allowed, the impugned orders as contained in Annexure 5 dated 19.08.2003 passed by the licensing authority and the appellate order dated 29.07.2006 as contained in Annexure 6 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the licensing authority, the respondent no. 4, to consider the same afresh in accordance with law and pass necessary 4 order recording reasons after considering the reply to the show-cause notice filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner. The writ application stands allowed to the extent as indicated above, but it does not mean that there would be automatic resumption of the supplies to the petitioner as the same would depend upon the nature of the order to be passed by the licensing authority in compliance of the direction of this Court. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)