Order Both these similar writ petitions were heard together. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal that licence has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 19th August, 2009 jointly passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Special Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur whereas the Licensing Authority is the Special Officer. He further submitted that Government has appointed the SDO as the Licensing Authority for the rural area and the Special Officer for the urban area, so far as the retail dealers are concerned. Petitioner is running a fair price shop as a retail dealer arid therefore, the Deputy Commissioner being the Appellate Authority, could not have passed the order of cancellation along with the Special Officer. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State, submitted that the Licensing Authority means an officer not below the rank of SDO appointed by the State Government and therefore, it may be above the rank of SDO. But he could not show that the Deputy Commissioner has been appointed as the Licensing' Authority for the retail dealers. Moreover, it is specifically stated in the counter-affidavit that the Special Officer is the Licensing Authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned. He further submitted that as the order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, the petitioner can file appeal before the Commissioner. 4. In reply, Mr. Agrawal submitted that as the Licensing Authority is the Special Officer, appeal lies only before the Collector and only because the Collector who is the Appellate Authority, has passed the order, the petitioner cannot be asked to file appeal before the Commissioner, who is the Revisional Authority. 5. Mr. Agrawal appears to be right that the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority so far as the petitioner is concerned and therefore, he should not have passed the impugned order along with the Special Officer. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 19th August, 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Special Officer who will pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after considering the explanation/show-cause filed by the petitioners, without being influenced by the order passed by him with the Deputy Commissioner. 7. Before parting, I wish to observe that the media report shows that the Public Distribution System is failing in this State. This position cannot be disputed by the State-respondents. 7. Before parting, I wish to observe that the media report shows that the Public Distribution System is failing in this State. This position cannot be disputed by the State-respondents. But it is seen in several cases that while taking action against P.D.S. dealers, the concerned authorities are passing orders in utter disregard to procedure prescribed under the law. It appears that they do not have elementary knowledge of law. The P.D.S. dealers are governed by the Jharkhand Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 as well as Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. It is unfortunate that the P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001 has not been made effective in this State, till now in the absence of notifications/orders required to be issued under that Order. The result is that the wrongdoers are escaping and public is suffering. It is high time when the State Government should take suitable steps immediately for making the P.D.S. (Control) Order, 2001 effective, and for training the Licensing/ Appellate/Revisional Authorities, about the law. With these observations and directions, these writ petitions stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Government of Jharkhand, for needful.