ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo no. 180 dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby petitioner’s PDS licence bearing no. 1/1986 as been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in PDS Licence Appeal No. 8 R 15/2015-16, whereby the order passed by the respondent no. 3 has been upheld. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that on surprise enquiry of the petitioner’s PDS shop made by the Block Supply Officer, Lapung on 27.05.2014, certain irregularities were found i.e., the said shop was found closed, it was not painted in green colour, no price board was hanging at the appropriate place as well as there was allegation of selling kerosene oil at higher price than the price fixed by the government. Accordingly, the petitioner’s PDS licence was suspended and the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice vide memo no. 148 dated 27.05.2014 by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner thereafter submitted reply to the show-cause notice on which the Block Supply Officer, Lapung was directed by the respondent no. 3 to submit the enquiry report. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents despite order of this Court. 4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3, it appears that the PDS licence of the petitioner has been ordered to be cancelled merely in view of the report of the Block Supply Officer, Lapung. No further reason has been assigned by the respondent no. 3 for cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3, the petitioner thereafter filed an appeal being PDS Licence Appeal No. 8 R 15/2015-16 before the respondent no. 2. The said appeal was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 vide impugned order dated 28.09.2017. On perusal of the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, it appears that the respondent no. 2 has narrated the fact that after issuance of the show-cause notice to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, the reply was filed by his son namely, Balkrishna Sahu making false signature of the petitioner. On perusal of the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, it appears that the respondent no. 2 has narrated the fact that after issuance of the show-cause notice to the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, the reply was filed by his son namely, Balkrishna Sahu making false signature of the petitioner. Thereafter, an F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner and his son by the Block Supply Officer, Lapung. The impugned order dated 28.09.2017 further reveals that no one turned up on behalf of the petitioner to argue the said appeal and accordingly the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the respondent no. 2 holding the order passed by the respondent no. 3 to be justified. 6. On perusal of the entire order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2, it does not appear that the said authority has considered the ground taken by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Even if no one appeared on behalf of the appellant (the petitioner herein) on the date fixed for argument of the appeal, the respondent no. 2 should have decided the appeal on merit, considering the ground taken by the petitioner in the memo of appeal. Moreover, the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 would itself disclose that the same is bereft of any finding whatsoever before reaching a conclusion to cancel the PDS licnece of the petitioner. It is a settled law that any administrative/quasi-judicial authority while taking a decision affecting the civil right of a person adversely, must conform to the requirement of principles of natural justice. The said requirement is not a mere formality, rather the same should be reflected from the orders passed by the authorities in decision making process. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in PDS Licence Appeal No. 8 R 15/2015-16 and the order contained in memo no. 180 dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi cannot be sustained in law and the same are accordingly quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner. 8. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi cannot be sustained in law and the same are accordingly quashed and set-aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioner. 8. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.