JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the order contained in memo No. 153 dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure-3) whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Porahat, Chakradharpur (respondent No. 2) has cancelled the petitioners' licence No. 2 of 2007 and 4 of 2008 respectively purportedly under Clause 11 of the Jharkhand Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners had applied for grant of trade licence under Clause 3 of the Unification Order for their appointment as dealers under the Public Distribution System (PDS). 3. The petitioner No. 1 was granted a trade licence No. 2 of 2007 for Chakradharpur Rural Area. Petitioner No. 2 had also applied for a similar licence and on receipt of his application and pursuant to the direction of the Sub Divisional Officer, an enquiry was conducted by the Block Supply Officer, Chakradharpur, who submitted his report indicating therein that as per the affidavit filed by the petitioner No. 2, it was confirmed that the petitioner No. 2 has been living separate from his brother and father and holds a separation Ration Card. 4. Upon receipt of the report and considering the same, the respondent No. 2 issued a trade licence No. 4 of 2008 to the petitioner No. 2 on 7.3 2008. 5. However, on 9.5.2008, vide memo No. 153 dated 9.5.2008, it was communicated to the petitioners that upon enquiry, it was revealed that Ram Pratap Varman and his two sons, namely the petitioners, lived jointly in mess and residence in the same house and therefore they being members of same joint family, are not entitled to possess three separate licences, and on such ground, the licences issued to the petitioners were cancelled by the impugned order issued by the respondent No .2. 6. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is not only wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also against the provisions of Clause 11(2) of the Jharkhand Trade Articles Licenses (Unification Order). 7. 6. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr. P.D. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order is not only wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also against the provisions of Clause 11(2) of the Jharkhand Trade Articles Licenses (Unification Order). 7. Learned Counsel explains that once a licence is granted after conducting necessary enquiry and on being satisfied upon the enquiry, the respondent No. 2 cannot cancel the licence on the ground stated which is totally alien to the conditions upon which the licence could be cancelled. 8. Learned Counsel elaborates that the licence could be cancelled only on the ground of contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence issued in Form C under Clause 4 of the Unification Order. 9. It is further argued that the impugned order amounts to an infringement of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, which protects the petitioners freedom of trade and business. Learned Counsel adds further float even otherwise, cancellation of the licence granted to petitioners without issuance of show cause notice to them, is in gross violation of the provisions of the Unification Order and therefore cannot be sustained in law. Reliance in support of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners is placed upon the judgments in the case of Lal Babu Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1989 PLJR 125; ishnu Roller Flour & Oil Mills (P) Limited v. State of Bihar 1994 (1) E ICC109 (pat) and Madhu Sudan Jha v. State of Jharkhand 2006 (3) E C.C 463 (Jhr). 10. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Ram Pratap Varman, father of the petitioner No. 1 is holder of a PDS Licence No. 9 of 1984. Admittedly, the petitioner No. 1 was granted licence No. 2 of 2007 and the petitioner No. 2 was granted licence No. 4 of 2008. All these licences were granted under the Public Distribution System in respect of urban areas of Chakradharpur town. 11. It is further stated that a complaint was received on 5.5.2008 from Tapas Kumar Dey and others objecting to the licence granted to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 and their father constitute the members of the same joint family. 11. It is further stated that a complaint was received on 5.5.2008 from Tapas Kumar Dey and others objecting to the licence granted to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 and their father constitute the members of the same joint family. An enquiry into the complaint was conducted by two Executive Magistrates. The report of the enquiry (Annexure B) confirms that the petitioners are living in the same house and they have a joint mess and it was also detected thereby that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner No. 2 contained a false declaration that he is separate from his father and brother, both in mess and residence. Upon the aforesaid ground, the respondents have sought to justify the impugned order canceling the licence granted to the petitioners. 12. The facts which emerge from the rival contentions of the parties is that: Separate trade licences under Clause 3 of the Licences (Unification Order) were issued by the respondent No. 2 to petitioners No. 1 and 2 respectively appointing the petitioners as dealers under the Public Distribution System (PDS). The trade licence granted to petitioner No. 1 was in respect of Chakradharpur Rural Area. Though the licences were issued after conducting requisite enquiry, they were cancelled by the respondents by the order impugned in this application. Prior to cancellation of the licence, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, nor any opportunity was given to them to explain as to why the licences issued to them should not be cancelled. There is no allegation that the petitioners had contravened any of the terms and conditions of the licence issued to them. 13. As per Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order, no, order of cancellation of licence shall be made, unless the licencee has been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing against the proposed cancellation. Further more, a licence once issued can be cancelled or suspended only in the event of contravention of any of the terms and conditions of the licence. 14. The grounds taken by the respondents for canceling the petitioners' licence does not come within the purview of the scope of terms and conditions of the Unification Order, or the licence granted to the petitioners. 15. 14. The grounds taken by the respondents for canceling the petitioners' licence does not come within the purview of the scope of terms and conditions of the Unification Order, or the licence granted to the petitioners. 15. It is apparent from the above facts that the cancellation of licence without giving the petitioners an opportunity of being heard against the proposed cancellation, is violative of the provisions of the aforesaid Unification Order and the principles of natural justice. 16. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Madusudhan Jha (supra). On finding that the licence granted to the petitioner therein under the PDS system was cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing against the proposed cancellation, this Court observed that the order of cancellation was violative of the Unification Order and the principles of natural justice. The same ratio applies to the facts of the present case also. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.5.2008 (Annexure-3) whereby the petitioners' licences No. 2 of 2007 and 4 of 2008 have been cancelled, is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to restore the aforesaid licences in favour of the petitioners. Application allowed.