ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, dismissing Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and the order contained in Memo No. 134 dated 22.03.2007 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no. 3-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga, whereby the PDS licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the present writ petition is that the petitioner was granted licence to run Fair Price Shop (PDS shop) for Bagha Gram Panchayat in the district of Lohardaga. Vide Memo No. 1425 dated 13.10.2004, the respondent no. 3-Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner alleging certain irregularities being committed by the petitioner in running the PDS shop. The said show-cause notice contained four allegations i.e, (1) during inspection, the PDS shop of the petitioner was found closed, (2) the distribution of kerosene was made @ Rs. 10.50 which is more than the fixed rate, (3) the petitioner did not distribute the BPL food-grains as a result of which the beneficiaries below poverty line has been deprived of the Government scheme, (4) from June 2004 to July 2004, only 15.5 Kg. of wheat and 19.5 Kg. of rice relating to Antyoday scheme were distributed to the beneficiaries and rest food-grains were sold in blackmarket and as such, the beneficiaries were deprived of the said scheme. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted reply on 15.10.2004 denying all the allegations, but neither the suspension of the licence was revoked nor the final order was passed by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 being Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2004 against the order of suspension of PDS licence and the same was disposed of directing the respondent no. 3 to dispose of the matter after issuing show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi being Revision No. 1 of 2005 and the same was also disposed of affirming the order passed by the respondent no. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner was again issued show-cause notice by the respondent no. 3 vide Memo No. 756 dated 05.07.2005 to submit reply along with the relevant register and cash memo. 2. Subsequently, the petitioner was again issued show-cause notice by the respondent no. 3 vide Memo No. 756 dated 05.07.2005 to submit reply along with the relevant register and cash memo. Again, vide Memo No. 48 dated 08.02.2007, the respondent no. 3 issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner mentioning inter alia that the reply to the show-cause notice along with the relevant cash memo and stock register should be submitted within a period of one week. The petitioner submitted the reply to the show-cause on 05.03.2007. However, vide impugned order contained in Memo No. 134 dated 22.03.2007, the respondent no. 3 cancelled the PDS licence of the petitioner holding inter alia that in spite of the repeated orders of licencing authority, the petitioner did not submit the relevant cash memo and the register, which is violative of Condition No. 8 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licence) Order, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 before the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 18.07.2009, which has also been put to challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it would be evident from the impugned order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 that the required register and the cash memo along with the reply to show-cause notice was available before the respondent no. 3 while passing the said order. However, the same was not considered only due to the reason that the said documents were submitted by the petitioner beyond the time of one week granted vide show-cause notice dated 08.02.2007. It is also evident from perusal of the impugned order dated 22.03.2007 that the respondent no. 3, while passing the order of cancellation of the PDS licence of the petitioner, has not taken into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 08.02.2007. Similarly, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 also does not contain any reason as to for violation of which condition of licence, the PDS licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. 5. Similarly, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 also does not contain any reason as to for violation of which condition of licence, the PDS licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. 5. The learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner's PDS shop bearing Licence No. 2 of 1996 was inspected by the Block Supply Officer, Lohardaga on 21.09.2004, in which several irregularities were found due to which the licensing authority suspended the PDS licence of the petitioner vide Memo No. 1324 dated 01.10.2004. It is further submitted that the order dated 22.03.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3 is completely justified, as the petitioner was found committing several irregularities in running his PDS shop. Similarly, the order passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2004 is also justified and both the orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents placed on record, it appears that vide Memo No. 48 dated 08.02.2007, a fresh show-cause notice was issued by the respondent no. 3 after the order passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 2004, affirmed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, Ranchi in Revision No. 1 of 2005. Vide said show-cause notice dated 08.02.2007, the petitioner was given opportunity to produce the stock register, sell register and cash memo within a period of one week along with the reply to the show-cause notice. The petitioner could not submit the said documents along with the reply within a period of one week, however, the same were submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2007. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 22.03.2007, the respondent no. 3, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, cancelled the PDS licence of the petitioner with an observation that the petitioner has repeatedly been violating the directions of the licensing authority. From the content of impugned order dated 22.03.2007, it is evident that the relevant registers and cash memo were available before the respondent no. 3 which were submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2007, however, he did not consider the same while passing the impugned order. 7. Clause 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licence) Order, 1984 reads as under: 11. 3 which were submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2007, however, he did not consider the same while passing the impugned order. 7. Clause 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licence) Order, 1984 reads 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.” 8. On perusal of Clause 11(1) of the said Order, 1984, it appears that the licence of any person can be cancelled if he contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence. However, in the present case, the respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 22.03.2007, without considering the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2007 and without reaching a conclusion as to how the petitioner has been found contravening the terms and conditions of the licence, ordered for cancellation of petitioner's PDS licence and as such, on this score only, the same cannot be legally sustained. Similarly, the impugned order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 4 of 2007 also does not disclose any factual finding on the basis of which, it was concluded that the petitioner violated the terms of licence. 9. Consequently, the impugned order 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga and the order contained in Memo No. 134 dated 22.03.2007 issued by the respondent no. 3-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga are quashed and set-aside. 9. Consequently, the impugned order 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga and the order contained in Memo No. 134 dated 22.03.2007 issued by the respondent no. 3-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga are quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3-the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga with a direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order after allowing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering his reply, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall cooperate in the said proceeding. 10. The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions.