Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing a particular show cause notice or without issuing any show cause against the proposed cancellation on the strength of the material collected subsequently the concerned S.D.O. has cancelled the licence. It is also contended that the order is patently without jurisdiction because no enquiry was made in the matter and the grounds which were projected in the show cause notice dated 13.12.2001 did not project any ground for taking any legal action against the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that notice no. 307 dated 13.12.2001 was comprehensive and under the said notice proper information was given to the petitioner. I have heard the parties. 5. From the notice dated 13.12.2001 (annexure-2), it appears that a complaint was made to the S.D.O., Patna by he Supply Inspector that at the time of inspection of the shop the petitioner had raised the certain objections or made resentment saying that the shops of the notified area were only being inspected and the other shops were not inspected. In addition to it he said that the petitioner did not properly co-operate at the time of inspection. I fail to understand that if the petitioner raised his voice against the periodical inspection on the ground that the shops of the particular area only were inspected and not other shops then why somebody felt heart-burning against it. In this country right to speech and right to protest is still not sub-ordinate to the authorities who are exercising administrative authority. When the Constitution guarantees fundamental rights then no person even if he is an officer of the State Government has an authority to raise his voice and say that the action of the individual is wrong. An authority if is aggrieved by such allegations then it must improve itself instead of taking a penal action against the person who raises his voice. 6. So far as the non-co-operation by the petitioner is concerned, from the records it does not appear that what particular lapses were committed by the petitioner in not co-operating with the said Supply Inspector. 6. So far as the non-co-operation by the petitioner is concerned, from the records it does not appear that what particular lapses were committed by the petitioner in not co-operating with the said Supply Inspector. Any material collected thereafter obviously could not be used and utilised for passing an order against the interest of the petitioner unless the same was brought to the notice of the petitioner and he was given a proper opportunity of submitting his show cause. The order dated 11.7.2002 is quashed.