ORDER : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order no. 80/2009 contained in memo no. 749 dated 18.07.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka (respondent no. 3) whereby the Public Distribution Shop (PDS) licence of the petitioner has been cancelled with immediate effect. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (respondent no. 2) in R.M.A. Case no. 21 of 2009-10 whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 3 has been upheld merely observing that the appellant has not put any argument. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was granted licence no. 33/86 to run the PDS shop under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification), 1984. on 15.12.2008, an alleged enquiry was made by the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Dumka in the PDS shop of the petitioner and the registers in the shop were not found maintained in proper manner. Moreover, an Anganbari Sewika along with other cardholders made complaint that the petitioner used to supply food grains and kerosene oil less than the prescribed quantity as well as alleging irregular supply of the said commodities. Thereafter, the petitioner was served a show-cause notice vide letter no. 22 dated 06.01.2009 by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner filed his show cause reply, however the same was found unsatisfactory and hence second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3 vide letter no. 165 dated 15.02.2009 which was also replied by the petitioner. Threafter, the impugned order no. 80/09 dated 18.07.2009 has been passed by the respondent no.3 cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner. 4. On perusal of the order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3, it appears that the said authority has mentioned the allegations made against the petitioner in the first paragraph of the said order. The second paragraph of the order contains the fact of seeking explanation by the said authority from the petitioner. Thereafter, other paragraphs contain the narration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter in the concluding paragraph, the respondent no. 3 has passed the order for cancellation of the PDS licence of the petitioner. The second paragraph of the order contains the fact of seeking explanation by the said authority from the petitioner. Thereafter, other paragraphs contain the narration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter in the concluding paragraph, the respondent no. 3 has passed the order for cancellation of the PDS licence of the petitioner. Thus, on perusal of the entire order dated 18.07.2009 passed by the respondent no. 3, it would be evident that while passing the order for cancellation of the PDS licence of the petitioner, no reason has been assigned by the respondent no. 3 before reaching such a conclusion. The said order, therefore, cannot be sustained in law and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. 5. Further, on perusal of the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 in R.M.A. Case no. 21 of 2009-10, it would be evident that the order passed by the respondent no. 3 has been upheld merely on the ground that the appellant (petitioner herein) did not put forth any argument. Even if the said fact is treated to be true, the respondent no. 2 being the appellate authority should have proceeded to decide the case on merit. Any statutory appeal preferred before the appellate authority cannot be rejected merely on the ground that according to the said authority, no argument was made before him. In such a situation, the respondent no. 2 should have considered the memo of appeal preferred by the petitioner and then to decide the matter after considering the merit of the same. Thus, the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 in R.M.A. Case no. 21 of 2009-10 also cannot be sustained in law and the same is also quashed and set aside. 6. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.3-The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dumka, to decide it afresh after considering the materials available on record and on providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.