ORDER The petitioner has a licence to run a fertilizer wholesale outlet. It was earlier cancelled by the Director, Agriculture which would be apparent from Annexure-4 the order passed by the District Agriculture Officer, Patna dated 8.10.2009. After the order of this Court, a fresh show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in which it is stated that on 15.11.2008 when an inspection was made of his outlet (shop), several types of anomalies were found. An inspection-cum-enquiry report was prepared and sent to the Agriculture Department. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued vide Annexure-2 dated 24.8.2009. In the said show-cause, the petitioner has been asked to give a reply to the anomalies as pointed out in the enquiry report. 2. The petitioner challenges the show-cause notice issued vide Annexure-2 dated 24.8.2009 as well as Annexure-4 by which his licence has been cancelled. The ground for challenging Annexure-2 is that the show-cause notice does not state the consequences of not satisfying the authority regarding the allegations made. It would be proper for this Court to quote the relevant portion. ? vr% vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9(I), (II) ,oa 3(2)(e) rFkk moZjd fu;a=.kkns'k 1985 dh /kkjk (I)(a) ds mYya?ku ds vkjksi esa vkidk Fkksd moZjd fcØh dk izkf/kdkj i= la0 3(N) fnukad 16-08-2007 dks rkRdkfyd izHkko ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gS] vkSj funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd i= fuxZr frfFk ds 15 ¼iUnzg½ fnuksa ds vUnj izfr"Bku ds xksnku esa miyC/k moZjdksa dh fcØh dj v|ksgLrk{kjh dks lwfpr djsaA 3. On perusal of the show-cause notice another defect comes to light which is that no charges have been framed with respect to the allegations (anomalies) supposedly done by the petitioner. It would appear that the show-cause is incomplete. The petitioner had no way of knowing whether the authorities concerned were going to suspend or cancel his licence, therefore, it does appear that Annexure-2 is hurriedly worded which does not contain the bare essentials which should accompany a show-cause notice. 4. The consequential order is Annexure-4 by which the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled for the reason that it is in violation of Section 9(I), (II) and 3(2)(e) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The ground for cancellation is that the petitioner has not given reply to the show-cause. 5. 4. The consequential order is Annexure-4 by which the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled for the reason that it is in violation of Section 9(I), (II) and 3(2)(e) of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The ground for cancellation is that the petitioner has not given reply to the show-cause. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a case decided by this Court reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 825 (Bhola Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar). This case relates to the cancellation of a licence by the Sub-divisional Officer issued under the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007. The petitioner’s licence was cancelled without giving him a fresh show-cause notice for cancellation of the licence. 6. In such circumstances, the Court quashed the notice. The case of the petitioner however, stands on a better footing as the show-cause does not contain the grounds on which the petitioner has to file his reply as well as not specifying whether the authorities intended to suspend or cancel the licence. In the result, I quash Annexures 2 and 4 and remand the matter back to the District Agriculture Officer, Patna to issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner within a period of 15 days on receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to supply a copy of this order within a period of one month on its receipt. The petitioner is also directed to file a show-cause within a period of 15 days on receipt of notice and the matter should be disposed of by the District Agriculture Officer, Patna within a period of three months thereafter. 7. This writ application is allowed.