JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing an order dated 16.8.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Appeal No. 155 of 2010 (Annexure-5) and an order as contained in Memo No. 943 dated 27.9.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-3) whereby the licence of the petitioner being Licence No. 10/CKY/98 has been cancelled and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice dated 23.08.2010 was issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer wherein certain allegations were made and pursuant to such allegation, the petitioner filed his reply dated 28.08.2010. Thereafter, in continuation with this, the public distribution system license of the petitioner was suspended and a show-cause notice dated 10.09.2010 was issued to the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2. However, the petitioner did not file reply to this show-cause notice and thereafter, the impugned order dated 27.09.2010 cancelling the license of the petitioner was passed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that against the order dated 27.09.2010, the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority which was numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal No. 155 of 2010. In the said appeal, the petitioner or his Advocate did not appear on the date fixed for hearing. Consequently, the appellate order was passed ex-parte against the petitioner. 6. Counsel further submits that one of the reasons which has been mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner is enrolled as Home Guard and is getting payment from the State Government and it has been mentioned in the impugned order that it is not possible for the petitioner to undertake both the works i.e. working as a Home Guard as well as running the fair price shop. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to annexure to the counter-affidavit at page 73 wherein certain information was sought for by the respondents from the office of the Home Guard, which is dated 08.12.2011 and the impugned order was passed on 27.09.2010. He submits that the respondents cannot rely upon said documents which have been obtained subsequent to passing of the impugned order. 8. He submits that the respondents cannot rely upon said documents which have been obtained subsequent to passing of the impugned order. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgments passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 409 of 2006 dated 02.01.2008, W.P. (C) No. 2331 of 2006 dated 01.08.2006 and judgment reported in 2006 (3) East Cr. C. 463 (Jhr). 9. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 23.08.2010. However, this show-cause notice is not on record. A reply to the said show-cause notice dated 28.08.2010 has been filed by the petitioner which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. As the show-cause notice dated 23.08.2010 is not on record, this court is not in a position to appreciate the show cause reply filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. 10. This Court further finds that an order of suspension alongwith a show-cause notice dated 10.09.2010 for termination of the licence was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-2 which is dated 10.09.2010, wherein detailed and specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. This show-cause notice was admittedly served upon the petitioner. But the petitioner has made a specific statement at paragraph no. 9 of the writ petition that the petitioner could not submit his show-cause reply due to lack of information and knowledge. As the petitioner did not file any explanation pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2010, the impugned order of termination was passed against the petitioner. 11. This Court further finds that against the order of termination, the petitioner filed an appeal. On the date fixed before the appellate authority, the petitioner did not appear and the appellate authority passed the impugned order and rejected the appeal vide order dated 16.08.2011. 12. Further, this Court finds that the petitioner is admittedly engaged with Home Guard and a specific statement has been made in para 19 of the writ petition that mere registration of the petitioner as a Home Guard does not prohibit him from retaining the license. 13. 12. Further, this Court finds that the petitioner is admittedly engaged with Home Guard and a specific statement has been made in para 19 of the writ petition that mere registration of the petitioner as a Home Guard does not prohibit him from retaining the license. 13. This Court finds that the impugned order of cancellation of license clearly indicates that the same has been passed by recording a finding that it is not possible for the petitioner to continue with the work of Home Guard as well as to run the fair price shop simultaneously. The appeal filed against this order of cancellation of license has been dismissed with the same reason. 14. So far as the judgments which have been relied upon by the petitioner are concerned, this Court finds that in W.P. (C) No. 409 of 2006 decided vide order dated 02.01.2008, a show-cause was filed before the licensing authority, but the show-cause was not considered while passing the final order and accordingly the matter was remanded before the authority concerned with a direction to pass fresh order. In another judgment relied upon by the petitioner being judgment dated 01.08.2006 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2331 of 2006, in the said case no notice to show-cause or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner of that case. Similarly, in the judgment reported in 2006 (3) East Cr. C. 463 (Jhr) Madhu Sudan Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to cancellation of license. 15. These three judgments have no applicability to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner in this case admittedly did not respond to the show cause notice 10.09.2010 issued to the petitioner which was admittedly served upon the petitioner as is apparent from para 8 and 9 of the writ petition. Further, there is no acceptable explanation furnished by the petitioner for not responding to the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner as the petitioner has annexed the show cause notice issued to the petitioner as mentioned in para 8 of the writ petition and in para 9, it has been simply stated that he could not submit his show cause due to lack of his information and knowledge. The petitioner having not responded to the show-cause issued to the petitioner which makes serious and specific allegations against the petitioner and in view of the directions issued by Hon’ble the supreme court in PUCL (PDS Matters) vs. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 688 , the petitioner does not deserve any relief under Article 226 of the constitution of India. In the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme court in PUCL (PDS Matters) vs. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 688 , following directions have been issued:- “16. To facilitate the supply of the grain, we issue the following directions: 16.1. Licensees, who: (a) do not keep their shops open throughout the month during the stipulated period. (b) fail to provide grain to the BPL families strictly at BPL rates and no higher. (c) keep the cards of BPL households with them. (d) make false entries in the BPL cards. (e) engage in black marketing or siphoning away of grains to the open market and hand over such ration shops to such other person/organisations, shall make themselves liable for cancellation of their licences. The authorities/functionaries concerned would not show any laxity on the subject.” 16. This Court finds that the petitioner, on the one hand, did not file any response to the show-cause notice dated 10.09.2010 issued to the petitioner which reflected specific allegations regarding various irregularities in distribution of food grains and kerosene oil, and, on the other hand, admittedly the petitioner is working as home guard with the State Government. This Court finds that the reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order of cancellation of license as well as the appellate order dismissing the appeal do not suffer from any illegality and perversity and the same is in consonance with the directions issued by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment PUCL (PDS Matters) vs. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 688 . 17. The authorities have, inter-alia, held that the petitioner is already working as Home Guard cannot run a fair price shop simultaneously. This Court is also of the considered view that the petitioner who is already working as Home Guard cannot run a fair price shop simultaneously. 17. The authorities have, inter-alia, held that the petitioner is already working as Home Guard cannot run a fair price shop simultaneously. This Court is also of the considered view that the petitioner who is already working as Home Guard cannot run a fair price shop simultaneously. The fair price shops are for the purposes of welfare of the public at large and deal with essential requirements of the poor people and it cannot be permitted to remain closed on the days when they are required to be open. 18. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.