ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner's PDS licence bearing No. 1/1986 for Panchayat Pindrahat, Block Poraiyahat, District Godda was cancelled by order dated 23rd August, 2008 passed by respondent no.4 – Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda and affirmed by order dated 21st January, 2013 passed in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2008-09 by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda (Annexure-1 and 2 respectively) (impugned herein). 3. The order of cancellation of PDS licence was based upon an inquiry conducted by the In-charge Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat on the complaints of several persons said to be card-holders of the petitioner's PDS shop and also on the basis of inspection undertaken on the PDS shop of the petitioner on 27.7.2008. Petitioner was served with a show-cause and after consideration of his reply the impugned order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda who also directed institution of an F.I.R. bearing Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 160 of 2008 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 4. The appellate authority also affirmed the order of cancellation by the impugned order at Annexure-2 on the basis of the allegations related to irregular supply of food articles to the beneficiaries card-holders under 'Antyodaya Scheme' and less supply of kerosene oil than prescribed. He also relied upon the inquiry report of the In-charge Block Supply Officer and the inspection report prepared after inspecting the petitioner's PDS shop on 27th July, 2008 at 10:35 A.M. when it was found closed. The appellate authority also took note of the fact that an F.I.R. has been instituted on the basis of the material evidence found during inquiry against the petitioner. He also observed that release of petitioner on bail would not amount to exoneration from the serious charges levelled against him. Cancellation of petitioner's PDS licence for the charges of irregularity, black-marketing and violation of the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licencing) Unification Order, 1984 was upheld. 5. The F.I.R. instituted against the petitioner on the written report of In-charge Block Supply Officer, Poraiyahat on the basis of inquiry conducted on the complaints of the villagers has ultimately led to the acquittal of the petitioner upon trial by judgment dated 30th May, 2014 passed by the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Godda in T.R. No. 26 of 2014/ G.R. No. 1016 of 2008 (Annexure-3 to the supplementary affidavit). It is not in dispute that basis for cancellation of the petitioner's PDS licence and the institution of the F.I.R. were the same. The same foundational fact which emerged from the inquiry of the In-charge Block Supply Officer and on the basis of the inquiry report prepared after inspection of the petitioner's premises did form the basis for cancellation of PDS licence of the petitioner and his prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Petitioner, therefore, now seeks reconsideration of the matter in view of the subsequent development of his acquittal in the criminal case. 6. Respondents in their counter affidavit have defended the order of cancellation of the PDS licence shop based upon the same inquiry report of the In-charge Block Supply Officer and the inspection report. They also submit that the impugned order has been passed after show-cause and compliance of the principle of natural justice. Statements made at paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit also show that while passing the order of cancellation of the PDS licence, a direction was issued for registration of F.I.R. under Section 7 of the E.C. Act against the petitioner. Respondents at paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit have also made a statement that till disposal of the F.I.R. petitioner cannot be freed from the charges levelled against him. 7. In the wake of the aforesaid relevant facts on record and the submissions of the parties, it is apparent that the same materials form the foundation for institution of the F.I.R. as well as passing of the impugned order of cancellation of the petitioner's PDS licence. Learned trial court, upon consideration of the entire material evidence including four prosecution witnesses and the relevant reports, has come to the conclusion that prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner under Section 7 of the E.C. Act beyond all reasonable doubts. He has, therefore, been acquitted of the charges. In such circumstances, reconsideration of the matter is warranted at the hands of the respondent authorities. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21st January, 2013 passed in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2008-09 by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda is set aside. He has, therefore, been acquitted of the charges. In such circumstances, reconsideration of the matter is warranted at the hands of the respondent authorities. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21st January, 2013 passed in Misc. Appeal No.26 of 2008-09 by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Godda to take a fresh decision in accordance with law taking into account the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case as well, within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.