ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2.6.2006 as contained in Annexure-3 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif by which his license granted for running a P.D.S. shop has been cancelled. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s name does not figure in the enquiry conducted by the Cabinet Vigilance Committee, which is apparent from the letter of the State Government dated 28.2.2006, which is part of Annexure-6 addressed to the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda appending therewith the names of the tainted P.D.S. dealers. 4. In paragrasph-4 of the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondent-State has also admitted that the petitioner’s name was not in the report of Vigilance Department. However, it is stated that the S.D.O., Biharsharif called for a report to indicate the tagging of Red Card Holders of different villages but it could not be shown on behalf of the State that any report of another enquiry conducted against the petitioner has been considered in the impugned order. The impugned order only discloses the enquiry conducted by the Cabinet Vigilance Department of the State of Bihar which is general allegation made against several P.D.S. dealers. The petitioner’s name does not even appear in the list of the tainted dealers. 5. This Court, while dealing with the similar issue in C.W.J.C. No.10213 of 2006, disposed of on 8.8.2011, has held that in the absence of any specific allegation against the petitioner, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. Even if, for the time being, it is assumed that some enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and something was found against him then issuance show cause notice and consideration of reply thereof has admittedly not been done. Although it has been stated that the reply was not satisfactory, however, that would not be sufficient as it is well settled that if the impugned order would visit civil consequence upon a party or person, a show cause should be mandatory and consideration of grounds raised in the reply to the show cause notice would also be necessary otherwise the order could be termed as having been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. It is also well settled that if the aforesaid illegality has been committed by the Licensing Authority then even consideration of the same by the appellate authority would not cure the defect. 6. A reference is made in this regard to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in M/S Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kuamr Vrs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 1999(1) BLJ 548. 7. Thus, in my opinion, this writ application can also be disposed of in terms of the order dated 8.8.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No.10213 of 2006. 8. As a result, the impugned order dated 2.6.2006 as well as well as the appellate orders dated 31.5.2011 as contained in Anexures 3 and 4 are quashed and set aside. 9. However, this order will not come in way of the concerned authority in initiating a fresh proceeding in case some cause of action arises in future. 10. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed.