Judgment Shivanugrah Narain, J. 1. This is an application for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order (copy whereof is annexture 4 to this writ application) dated 14-4-1977 of the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) cum Special Officer Incharge Rationing, Dhanbad, by which the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply) has cancelled three licences held by the petitioner Messrs. Googan Lal Marwari. The first licence was a wholesale dealers licence under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing order, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Foodgrains Order) the se cond licence was a retail dealers licence issued under the Bihar Vanaspati dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter called the Vanaspati Order)and the third licence was wholesale dealers licence issued under the Bihar edible Oils Wholesale Dealers Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter to be called the Edible Oils Order ). 2. The relevant facts are these. On 2-7-1976 the learned Additional district Magistrate (Supply), Dhanbad, alongwith others, inspected the busi ness establishment of the petitioner and found certain irregularities there in which will be detailed later on. By his office memo no.2059 dated 10-7-76 (copy whereof is Annexure 2 to this writ application) the Special Officer incharge Rationing detailed the irregularities found at the time of inspection and called upon the petitioner to show cause before him on 25-7-76 why in view of the aforesaid serious irregularities, its licences under the aforesaid three Licensing Orders be not cancelled. It was stated in the aforesaid notice (Annexure 2) that the articles in the shop were not kept arranged as a result of which there was serious inconvenience during the time of inspection and that this amounted to contravention of conditions 9 and 12 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order. It was stated in the aforesaid notice (Annexure 2) that the articles in the shop were not kept arranged as a result of which there was serious inconvenience during the time of inspection and that this amounted to contravention of conditions 9 and 12 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order. It was further stated in this notice ask ing the petitioner to show cause that on physical verification of the stocks kept in the godown and examination of the stock registers, it was found that the stock of rice was in excess by one bag and the stocks of atta (wheat flour)gram including chunni, mustard oil, badam oil and Vanaspati were short by 20 bags, 2 bags, 41 tins, 14 tins and 2 tins respectively, and that this amount ed to contravention of condition no.3 of the licence under the Foodgrains order, condition no.4 of the licence under the Edible Oil Order and condi tion no.3 of the licence under the Vanaspati Order. It was further stated therein that because of these shortages and irregularities found, its (petitio ners stock book, cash memos and the goods, whose stock was found short, had been seized and a case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities act, 1955 instituted. The petitioner submitted a petition in writing dated 24-7-1976 (copy whereof is Annexure 3 to the writ petition) to the Special officer Incharge Rationing showing cause and praying that the proceedings be dropped. The petitioner stated that it had afforded facilities for inspec tion and there was no difficulty in counting or checking the stocks and one variety of pulse was kept separately for convenience of customers and, that therefore, there was no violation of condition no.12 of the licence under the Foodgrains Order. As regards allegation of shortage or excess in the stocks of various articles, the explanation given was that actually there was no shortage or excess in any of the commodities but there was misunder standing which could not be cleared up because the main managing partner of the firm was not present at the time of inspection. The explanation given was that, one bag of rice found in excess did not form part of the stock in trade of the dealer but represented rice purchased for his personal consump tion. The explanation given was that, one bag of rice found in excess did not form part of the stock in trade of the dealer but represented rice purchased for his personal consump tion. As regards the shortage of 20 bags of atta, it was stated that the shortage was due to fact that credit sales to 4 customers on 2-7-1976 of 5 bags of atta each under credit memos 4 to 7 were not taken into accounts. The shortage of 2 bags of gram was sought to be explained by stating that it was sold to one Bhuneshwar Yadav and the cash memo was not issued at the time because the gram had gone for grinding, to the mill and cash memo was to be issued after it was received back after grinding. The ex planation for the shortage of 2 tins of Vanaspati was that these 2 tins had been sold and the cash memo evidencing tht sale had escaped the notice of the raiding party. The shortage in the stock of mustard oil and groundnut oil was explained on the basis of sales on credit on that very date under credit memo nos, 1 and 2 respectively of that date. It was also stated in the petition showing cause that since a criminal prosecution for an offence under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been instituted and the case was still to be investigated and tried, the matter should not be prejudced. The petition went on to say that the petitioner was prepared to satisfy the authority by appearing in person that he was innocent and that he was prepared to furnish any order and further information required. It appears thereafter the impugned order dated 14-4-1977 was passed. 3. Mr. S. B. Sanyal, the learned Advocate for petitioner, urges that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, void and fit to be set aside. It appears thereafter the impugned order dated 14-4-1977 was passed. 3. Mr. S. B. Sanyal, the learned Advocate for petitioner, urges that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, void and fit to be set aside. He argues that the principles of natural justice have been violated on two counts-firstly, because the learned Additional District Magistrate was, by reason of his bias, disqualified from adjudging the matter and passing the order as he combined in himself the functions of a judge, prosecutor and witness and secondly because the petitioner was denied a reasodable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of licences because he was denied an opportunity of being heard in the matter and putting forward his case and also because he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of controverting materials adverse to him. 4. The contentions were controverted by the learned Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. The learned Government pleader also urges that the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) cum special Officer Incharge Rationing was enjoined by the statute to consider the matter of cancellation of the licences and, therefore, the doctrine of the order being vitiated by bias had no application to an order passed by him. He further contended that the petitioner had been given full opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation. 5. I propose first to consider the submission regarding the denial of a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter of cancellation of licences. It is the requirement of the principles of natural justice that no order involving evil consequences shall be passed against a person without affording to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. It is the requirement of the principles of natural justice that no order involving evil consequences shall be passed against a person without affording to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. So far as the orders cancelling the licences under the aforesaid 3 orders are concerned, these principles of natural justice have been embodied in clauses 7 of the Foodgrains Order, the Edible Oil Order and the Vanaspati Order, all of which provide that before an order of can cellation of licence is made, the licensee must be given a reasonable oppor tunity of being heard in the matter It was argued on behalf of the peti tioner that he was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard because, while passing the order the learned Special Officer Incharge Rationing used certain materials for disbelieving the explanation offered by the dealer regarding the alleged shortages in the stock found without offering the dealer (petitioner) any opportunity of controverting those materials. It is well settled that an authority which proposes to use any material against the plea put forward by a party must give that party a reasonable opportunity of controverting that that adverse material. [see Dha-keswari Cotten Mills Ltd. V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax ( AIR 1955 SC 65 )]. In the present case, as already said, the explanation put forward by the dealer was that the shortages in stock noticed were due to failure to take into account certain transactions of the day evidenced by credit memos and cash memos which, unfortunately, could not be shown to the officers who carried out the inspection because Shri Mahendra Kumar, the person-in-charge of the business, was not present at the time of inspection. This was the explanation put forward in respect of the shortage found in the stock of atta also. After setting out the explanation, the learned Additional district Magistrate (Supply) in the impugned order observed as follows : (The English verson of what he has said is given the order being in Hindi) - "at the time of inspection. I have examined all documents and also made enquiries whether any goods were sold on credit and whether there was any other cash memo or not. The person present in the shop never informed me that any creadit memo used to be issued. I have examined all documents and also made enquiries whether any goods were sold on credit and whether there was any other cash memo or not. The person present in the shop never informed me that any creadit memo used to be issued. " Thereafter, after stating the credit memo book was open on that very date, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply) concluded that the plea regarding sale by credit memo was merely a pretext. At another place in the order repelling the plea that one cash memo regarding the sale of 2 tins of Vanaspati was not examined by the officers, the learned additional District Magistrate (Supply) said that all the cash-memos, that were produced at the inspection had been examined. Not only that, the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply), who was one of the officers present at the time of inspection, had used his personal knowledge in the matter but while utilising those materials adverse to the petitioners, he does not appear to have given the petitioner any opportunity of controverting those prejudicial materials. These materials came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after he received a copy of the impugned order cancelling his licences and, therefore, it is obvious that he could not controvert these prejudicial matters at any stage of the proceedings before the learned additional Magistrate (Supply ).5-A. I may mention that in paragraph 9 of the petition it was specifi cally asserted that after filing of the show cause the petitioner was never heard nor he was even called upon to produce rnor he was ever asked to produce the cash memos, credit memos and purchase vouchers of the date in support of his defence. The counter-affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondents including the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) says only this regarding the allegations in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. "that in regard to the statements contained in para 9 of the writ application saying that the Commissioner rejected the revision is correct. " There is, therefore, no denial of the allegation that the petitioner was never heard except that he was given an opportunity of filing a show cause petition. It is true that the impugned order contains a recital that the matter was heard on 21.8.76. And, ordinarily we would have found it difficut to go behind the recital in the order. It is true that the impugned order contains a recital that the matter was heard on 21.8.76. And, ordinarily we would have found it difficut to go behind the recital in the order. But in this case, as the averment in the petition has not been denied by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply), on whose behalf a counter-affidavit has been filed, we are unable to proceed on the footing that an oral hearing was given to the petitioner. At any rate, there is nothing to show that the prejudicial fact that during the course of enquiry made by the Additional District Magistrate (Supply), the man present had informed him that no credit memos were being issued was ever disclosed to the dealer he had any opportunity of controverting the same.1 may state that in the notice asking cause to be shown (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) though the details of the alleged shortages are given, there is no averment that anybody informed the authorities carrying out the inspection that no credit memos were being issued by the dealer. It must, therefore, be held that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of controverting the aforesaid adverse materials and thus he was denied a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the cancellation of his various licences. The order passed, therefore, contravenes the principles of natural justice and must be quashed. 6 As the application succeeds on this ground alone, it is not neces sary to consider the other limb of the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioner of contravention of the principles of natural justice namely, about the Additional District Magistrate (Supply) confining in himself the functions of accuser, witness and judge and, therefore, the order passed contravenes the principle that no man should be a judge in his own cause. 7. I would accordingly, allow the application and by a writ in the nature of certiorari quash the order dated 14-4-77 of the learned Addi tional District Magistrate (Supply) cancelling the licences of the petitioner and also the order passed on appeal by the learned Commissioner, North chotanagpur Division dated 19-4-77 affirming the same. 7. I would accordingly, allow the application and by a writ in the nature of certiorari quash the order dated 14-4-77 of the learned Addi tional District Magistrate (Supply) cancelling the licences of the petitioner and also the order passed on appeal by the learned Commissioner, North chotanagpur Division dated 19-4-77 affirming the same. The result of quashing the aforesaid order cancelling the licences will be that the question whether the licences shoulder should not be cancelled and whether the show cause petition submitted by the petitioner was acceptable or not has to be decided afresh after giving the petitioner a reasonable oppor tunity of being heard in the matter. I should like to observe that since the learned Additional District Magistrate (Supply) took part in the ins pection and had personal knowledge of matters bearing on the cancellation of the licences and the report, on the basis of which the proceeding for cancellation were initiated was submitted on inspection in which he had participated, it would be desirable that the matter of cancellation of the licences of the petitioner should not be heard by the learned Additional district Magistrate (Supply) in whom the petitioner may not have confi dence, but by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, himself, who also is a licensing authority under the Orders in question. In the circum stances of the case, I would make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.