JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate appearing for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- For setting aside the order contained in memo no. 338 dated 19-05-2014, whereby the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakur has cancelled the Public Distribution System License of the petitioner bearing No. 04/1986 with immediate effect on the ground that the petitioner has been involved in the black marketing of the K.oil and that the criminal prosecution has been initiated against the petitioner in Pakur (M) P.S. Case No. 506/2013, G.R. No. 1315/2013, registered under sections 406, 409, 420 and 120(B) I.P.C. read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- a. The petitioner is a holder of Public Distribution System License No. 4 of 1986. b. A show cause notice contained in memo no. 560 dated 10.12.2013 was issued to the petitioner wherein specific allegation was made against the petitioner that the petitioner has lifted kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 and has sold the same by way of black marketing, therefore the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 was not distributed and as to why his licence be not cancelled. A criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner. c. The petitioner filed his show cause reply reporting that he had lifted kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 only on 30.11.2013 and thereafter on account of ill health, he could not distribute the same. He specifically stated that entire kerosene oil is available in his shop which can be found out upon inspection. d. Thereafter inspection was conducted in the shop of the petitioner and inspection report dated 22.12.2013 was submitted before the Licensing Authority wherein specific finding has been recorded that the entire stock of kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 was found intact in the premises of the petitioner. e. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter without considering the inspection report and without considering the reply of the show cause filed by the petitioner, the impugned order as contained in memo no. e. Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter without considering the inspection report and without considering the reply of the show cause filed by the petitioner, the impugned order as contained in memo no. 338 dated 19.05.2014 has been passed cancelling the licence of the petitioner merely on the ground that a criminal case of black marketing has been filed against the petitioner. f. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse in as much as the authority has not taken into consideration the show cause filed by the petitioner as well as the inspection report dated 22.12.2013 which clearly stipulates that the entire stock of kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 is intact. 5. Counsel for the respondent during the course of argument could not show from the impugned order or from the materials available on record that the show cause reply filed by the petitioner as well as the inspection report dated 22.12.2013 has been considered by the authority wherein it has been specifically recorded that the entire stock of kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 was found intact in the premises of the petitioner. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials which are available on record, this court finds as follows:- (a) That the show cause notice dated 10.12.2013 was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-1 wherein the allegation of black marketing in connection with kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 has been levelled against the petitioner. The petitioner was also asked to explain as to why he did not distribute kerosene oil for the month of November 2013. (b) To the show cause the petitioner had filed reply mentioning that the petitioner had lifted kerosene oil on 30.11.2013 and on account of his ill health, he could not distribute the entire kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 and the same is available in his shop and accordingly the allegation of black marketing is not correct. He further submitted that the kerosene oil which was lifted on 30.11.2013 could not be distributed till 10.12.2013 on account of his ill health. He further submitted that the kerosene oil which was lifted on 30.11.2013 could not be distributed till 10.12.2013 on account of his ill health. (c) Pursuant to the show cause reply, an inspection was conducted and vide inspection report dated 22.12.2013, finding has been recorded that the kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 was found in the shop of the petitioner. (d) From the above facts, it appears that the allegation of black marketing in connection with kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 was not found to be true upon due inspection, as the entire stock of kerosene oil lifted by the petitioner for the month of November 2013 was found intact upon inspection. (e) Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer Pakur passed the impugned order of cancellation of license on the ground that the F.I.R. has been instituted against the petitioner and held that the petitioner is involved in black marketing of kerosene oil which the petitioner had lifted for the month of November 2013. (f) This finding has been recorded without considering the show cause reply filed by the petitioner and without considering the inspection report. (g) Accordingly the impugned order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner is perverse on account of non-consideration of the show-cause reply filed by the petitioner as well as non-consideration of inspection report pursuant to inspection conducted in the premises of the petitioner and accordingly the impugned order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner is fit to be set aside. (h) It appears that the allegation which was levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice was duly denied by the petitioner and the entire stock of kerosene was found in the premises of the petitioner during inspection and accordingly the allegation of black marketing was apparently not correct. Further the petitioner had lifted the kerosene oil for the month of November 2013 on 30.11.2013 and the show cause notice is dated 10.12.2013 and it was also alleged that the petitioner had not distributed the kerosene oil. To this allegation also, there was explanation given by the petitioner in his show cause reply where he had made a statement that he could not distribute the kerosene oil on account of his ill health. The impugned order of cancellation of licence does not consider this explaination of the petitioner also. 7. To this allegation also, there was explanation given by the petitioner in his show cause reply where he had made a statement that he could not distribute the kerosene oil on account of his ill health. The impugned order of cancellation of licence does not consider this explaination of the petitioner also. 7. Considering the aforesaid findings of this court, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order contained memo no. 338 dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Pakur is hereby set aside.