ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 03.01.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no.2, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua cancelling the licence of the petitioner bearing licence no. 10/89 for retail dealership granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Unification Order”). 3. Short facts of this case are as under:- The petitioner was holding licence no.10/89 issued under the Unification Order for retail dealership. Vide Annexure-1, which is an order dated 24.08.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua, his licence was suspended and he had been directed to show cause within one week upon charges which were levelled in Annexure-1. Petitioner had filed his reply to the show cause notice though after lapse of the period of one week as granted by the authority. A copy thereof stands appended as Annexure-2. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2007 (Annexure-3), respondent no. 2 had cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Hence this writ application. 4. I have heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned A.A.G.-7, and have perused the record of the case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following three issues in this case. (i) As per the provisions contained in Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order if the concerned authority was proposing to cancel his licence then a reasonable opportunity to state his case against the proposed cancellation must have been accorded to the petitioner by issuing specific show cause notice. (ii) Since the petitioner had filed the reply to the show cause notice-cum-suspension order dated 24.8.2006, order of cancellation must have disclosed the reasons for rejecting the points raised by the petitioner. (iii) From the order of cancellation (Annexure-3), it appears that the authority has passed the order considering the report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, who was directed to submit a report in view of the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner. Thus, before passing an order affecting the petitioner, a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari must have been supplied to him. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of the order, as contained in Annexure-1, it does not appear that the authorities concerned were contemplating a proceeding for cancellation of licence of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of the order, as contained in Annexure-1, it does not appear that the authorities concerned were contemplating a proceeding for cancellation of licence of the petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Paspat Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (2011(2) PLJR, 698) in support of his contention. It has been submitted that this Court has held that a proceeding for cancellation of licence must indicate that it is being issued to the petitioner for explaining cause against proposed cancellation of the licence. It is next submitted that though the petitioner has filed a show cause as contained in Annexure-2, it appears that subsequent thereof the Circle Officer was directed to make inquiry and a report had been submitted. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahua has cancelled the licence on the basis of such report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, however, a copy thereof was never supplied to the petitioner, who was completely in dark regarding any inquiry having been held and, as such, the same would vitiate the order of cancellation. It is further contended that from perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear reasons for rejecting the points raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice has been assigned and, as such, that would be a serious lacuna. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon several decisions of this issue including a decisions of this Court in M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and other 1991(1) BLJ 548 as well as a decision of this court dated 11.07.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12675 of 2006 (Ram Uday Singh Versus State of Bihar & Others along with other analogous cases). 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State giving the factual aspects indicating the irregularities committed by the petitioner which have led to the authorities to cancel his licence, however, the same do not answer the aforesaid questions. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State giving the factual aspects indicating the irregularities committed by the petitioner which have led to the authorities to cancel his licence, however, the same do not answer the aforesaid questions. At the time of hearing of this case, learned A.A.G. 7 submitted that it would be apparent from the provisions, as contained in 11(2) of the Unification Order, that the suspension can be by way of interim measure in a proceeding contemplated for cancellation of the licence and, as such, since notice was served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted his cause and after considering the same the impugned order has been passed, the points raised by the petitioner should not be given much importance. However, learned A.A.G 7 has not been able to show from the averments made in the counter affidavit or from the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 that a copy of the inquiry report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari regarding the inquiry conducted by him after the submission of the reply to the show cause notice of the petitioner has been served or supplied to the petitioner and also that the impugned order discloses the reasons for rejecting the grounds raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice. 8. So far the first issue is concerned, for better appreciation the relevant provision of the Unification Order is reproduced as under:- “11. Suspension and cancellation of licence.-(1) If any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. (2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” 9. From sub-clause(1) of Clause 11, it appears that the licence of the petitioner can either be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles if he contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence. Therefore, even if there is contravention of the terms of license with regard to one or more articles there may be situation where a licence could either be cancelled or suspended only with regard to those articles. In that case, the licence would survive for remaining articles. From reading of sub-clause (2) of Clause 11, it would appear that the no cancellation order can be passed unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation. However, during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee for stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee. It is admitted position that the order of suspension, as contained in Annexure-1, itself includes a notice to the petitioner to the show cause. It is also admitted that no other show cause notice has been issued to him. From perusal of the show cause notice, in the opinion of this Court, it does not appear that the same has been issued in contemplation of a proceeding of cancellation of his licence. If suspension is, as submitted by learned counsel, under sub-clause(2) of Clause 11, i.e, in a proceeding for proposed cancellation of a licence that is not reflected from Annexure-1. Annexure-1 does not disclose that there was a proceeding for cancellation of licence in which a show cause notice was issued and in that proceeding itself an order of suspension has been passed. Annexure-1 does not disclose that there was a proceeding for cancellation of licence in which a show cause notice was issued and in that proceeding itself an order of suspension has been passed. Thus, the submission raised on behalf of the State would have to be rejected in this regard. Thus, I hold that from the notice, as contained in Anenxure-1, it does not appear that the same was issued in contemplation of any proceeding proposing cancellation of his licence and for the same there would be no difficulty for this Court in following the decision of this Court rendered in Paspat Prasad (supra). 10. Coming to the next issue, I have already stated earlier that learned counsel has not been able to show that any point or any issue which has been raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice, as contemplated in Annexure-1, has been dealt with and has been rejected without recording reason by the licensing authority. The Division Bench of this Court in Ms. Umesh Chandra (supra) has held that non-consideration of averments made in reply to the show cause notice would be a fatal lacuna in exercise of jurisdiction and would indicate non-application of mind by the authorities. Relevant passage of the aforesaid decision is reproduced as under:- “In the show cause filed by the petitioner this fact was asserted but the licensing authority without mentioning much less considering the same has cancelled the licence. Before cancellation of licence show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has filed show cause. In such a situation the licensing authority should have considered and assigned some reason though not elaborately before cancelling the licence. Non-consideration of averments made in the show cause and absence of any reason in the order, in our view, is a serious lacuna in the impugned order as the same shows a complete non-application of mind on the part of the licensing authority. Any order visiting consequence on the concerned person must assign reason otherwise the superior authority or the Court, in case of the order being challenged, will not be in a position to know the reason which has led the authority in passing the order.” 11. This Court has followed the aforesaid decision in other cases including one in Ram Uday Singh (supra). This Court has followed the aforesaid decision in other cases including one in Ram Uday Singh (supra). Thus, this writ application succeeds on this point also as apparently there has been non-consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the reply to his show cause notice. 12. Coming to the last issue, from the impugned order itself it appears that after submission of the reply to the show cause notice, as per the direction of the superior authority, the licensing authority had directed the Circle Officer to conduct inquiry on certain issues and submit a report which was submitted. But learned counsel for the State could not point out either from the impugned order or from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that a copy thereof was also supplied to the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the petitioner had been kept in complete dark regarding the further inquiry in this case and the licensing authority has passed the order of cancellation on the basis of such inquiry report. Thus, the writ application would succeed on this ground also. 13. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed and as a result the order, as contained in Annexure-3, is set aside. 14 However, it would be open for the authority concerned to proceed further in accordance with law.