ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has assailed the order at Annexure-12 bearing Memo No. 911 dated 26th November, 2008 passed by respondent No. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Chas, whereunder his P.D.S. License being No. 17/BRA/93 has been cancelled under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. The appellate order dated 29th November, 2010 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132/2008 by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Bokaro, dismissing his appeal, is also under challenge. 3. The impugned action was preceded by a show-cause notice bearing Memo No. 475 dated 17th December, 2007 issued by respondent No. 3 upon the petitioner asking him to furnish his reply on the charges alleged and to explain as to why his P.D.S. License be not placed under suspension. The show cause alleged that on an inspection on 18th December, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. P.D.S. shop was found closed. The following irregularities were also noticed : (i) On inspection, the shop was closed; (ii) No information board was placed in front of the shop; (iii) Stock and Price table was also not published in front of the shop; (iv) Inquiry from the local people revealed that the shop remains mostly closed; (v) Inquiries from the card-holders also revealed that for almost a year there has been no distribution of essential items i.e. wheat, rice, kerosene oil etc. Further allegations were also made by the Red Card/Antyodaya Card Holders. 4. Petitioner furnished his reply at Annexure-2 dated 27th December, 2007 seeking to explain the closure of the shop on the ground that his wife was having some quarrel with another lady and he had gone to pacify them on the date of inspection. He also explained that because of closure of shop, such posts were not put up in front of the shop like stocks and price details. However, the respondent was not satisfied with the reply of petitioner and his P.D.S. shop was placed under suspension vide order dated 20th March, 2001 bearing Memo No. 159 (Annexure-4) passed by respondent No. 3. 5. Petitioner was given another opportunity to furnish his reply to the allegations vide Memo No. 215 dated 17th April, 2008 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No. 3 asking him once again to answer as to why appropriate action be not taken in respect of his P.D.S. License. 5. Petitioner was given another opportunity to furnish his reply to the allegations vide Memo No. 215 dated 17th April, 2008 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No. 3 asking him once again to answer as to why appropriate action be not taken in respect of his P.D.S. License. Petitioner seems to have replied to the said show-cause notice also vide Annexure-6 dated 28th April, 2008. This was also followed by another letter bearing No. 618, dated 26th August, 2008 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent No. 3, which revoked the order of suspension and indicated that the shop of the petitioner would be kept under observation. It also referred to the inquiry conducted in July, 2008 in respect of 11 card holders, 8 of whom had furnished a written complaint about the irregularities in the distribution of the essential P.D.S. items. Petitioner was asked to respond to the same and explain as to why his P.D.S. license itself be not cancelled. Petitioner again responded to the said show cause vide Annexure-9 dated 5th September, 2008 stating that after revocation of the suspension order, there has been distribution of essential P.D.S. items to the card holders, which have been accepted by them. He has not recorded any forged signature in the sale register and the same were taken in presence of the card holders. Another show-cause notice was issued vide Annexure-10 bearing No. 773 dated 10th November, 2008 by the respondent No. 3 once again referring to photocopy of the sale register and indicating the irregularities found during the course of the inquiry. It alleged that out of 8 card holders who had given their written complaint inquiries revealed that though Gupteshwar Singh and Ghanshyam Singh do not reside their but their signatures have been recorded in a forged manner in the sale register. It further alleged that one Charku Singh, a card holder, is literate but the sale register shows recording of his forged thumb impression. Other allegations were also referred, upon which the petitioner was asked to respond. Petitioner also submitted his reply thereto vide Annexure-11 dated 17th November, 2008 stating that distribution of P.D.S. items are made to the person who approaches with a card. Those, who take the items on behalf of P.D.S. Card Holders are allowed to record their signatures on the sale register. There are no photographs on the card. 6. Petitioner also submitted his reply thereto vide Annexure-11 dated 17th November, 2008 stating that distribution of P.D.S. items are made to the person who approaches with a card. Those, who take the items on behalf of P.D.S. Card Holders are allowed to record their signatures on the sale register. There are no photographs on the card. 6. Being dissatisfied with the replies of the petitioner, the impugned order cancelling his P.D.S. license has been passed on 26th November, 2008. On appeal the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Bokaro has, by a detailed reasoned order, found no infirmity in the order of cancellation and rejected the appeal vide Annexure-13 also impugned herein. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has, in the aforesaid factual background of the case, urged that petitioner is not guilty of violating any terms and conditions of P.D.S. License or Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. In the repeated show cause issued upon him, he has fairly and frankly disclosed that PDS items are distributed to anyone, who comes with a card. The PDS Card Holders often do not come personally, but their family members approach for distribution of essential items. These instances therefore do not establish a case of black marketing against the petitioner warranting cancellation of his P.D.S. License itself, which has been operating since 1993 itself. The Original Authority as well as Appellate Authority both have failed to consider the merits of the matter in the correct prospective. The impugned order therefore suffers from errors of facts and appreciation of materials on record which requires interference by this Court. 8. Counsel for the respondent-State had defended the impugned order. The chronology of facts and the repeated show-cause notices containing the allegations, to which the petitioner was asked to respond, have also been reiterated in course of his submission. It is submitted that the materials, which are reflected in the show-cause as also in the impugned appellate order clearly establish that petitioner has not conformed to the conditions of Trade License and irregularities committed are writ large. Petitioner has been served with repeated show-cause notices containing the specific allegations found during the course of inquiry. Therefore, petitioner cannot also allege violation of principle of natural justice. The impugned order therefore does not require any interference. 9. I have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts pleaded, noticed herein-above. Petitioner has been served with repeated show-cause notices containing the specific allegations found during the course of inquiry. Therefore, petitioner cannot also allege violation of principle of natural justice. The impugned order therefore does not require any interference. 9. I have considered the submission of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts pleaded, noticed herein-above. This Court in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is required to satisfy itself about the legality of the decision making process, rather then sitting in appeal over decision of the administrative authorities on merits of the matter. However, even scrutiny of all relevant materials on record as noticed hereinabove show that the operation of P.D.S. shop under Trade License is being carried out in a proper and irregular manner. If distribution of essential P.D.S. items are being made in such a fashion, then inference drawn by the respondent - Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, cannot be said to suffer from non-application of mind or taking into account irrelevant material alien to the matter. The materials which been revealed during the course of inquiry have been communicated to the petitioner by repeated show-cause notices giving him due opportunity to respond. After consideration of his reply, however, the respondents have found instances of repeated irregularities in the operation of P.D.S. shop in question. 10. In such circumstances, this Court does not find that the impugned decision suffers on any counts warranting interference under judicial review. The writ petition therefore being devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.