JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijit Kumar, the learned JC to SC-VI appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 09.06.2009 which has been passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla-respondent No.3 whereby the license No.01/90 of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System of the Bihar Essential Commodities Act, 1984 has been cancelled. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on business of fair price shop under Public Distribution System at Village-Shivrajpur, Post-Belagarha, Thana-Ghaghra, within the district of Gumla having license no.01/90 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla under Bihar Essential Commodities Act (Unification Control Order), 1984. He further submits that there was no complaint from the beneficiaries against the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed without properly considering the reply of the petitioner. He further submits that the enquiry report on which the action was taken was also not provided to the petitioner and proper opportunity of hearing was also not provided to the petitioner. He submits that the Government of Jharkhand vide order dated 16.06.2005 directed the authority concerned to constitute a committee in every district of the State of Jharkhand under the chairmanship of the concerned Deputy Commissioner. The Committee shall take decision finally on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer with respect to issuance of license, suspension, revocation and cancellation under the Public Distribution System on the recommendation of the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding any sort of irregularities being committed in the Fair Price Shop and no final decision shall be taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer in absence of the decision of the Committee. He further submits that the Committee has already been constituted in which three authorities are included in that Committee. He submits that in view of this order, the power of cancellation is with the Committee and here the impugned order has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla, which is without jurisdiction. 4. Per contra, Mr. Abhijit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is provision of appeal against the impugned order and there is alternative remedy, thus, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. 4. Per contra, Mr. Abhijit Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is provision of appeal against the impugned order and there is alternative remedy, thus, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the order is without jurisdiction, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere and pass the appropriate order. He relied on the case of “Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors.” reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 [para-15]. Paragraph no.15 of the said judgment is reproduced below: “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.” 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the Government by order dated 16.06.2005 issued certain directions and directed that the Committee is empowered to take any action with regard to any irregularity including cancellation of license. Thus, only the Committee is having the power to cancel the license whereas in this case the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla has passed the order without recommendation of the Committee. This Court finds that the order impugned has been passed without any jurisdiction. The stand of the learned counsel appearing for the State is negated in view of the well-settled principle of law in the case of “Whirlpool Corporation” (supra). 7. This Court finds that the order impugned has been passed without any jurisdiction. The stand of the learned counsel appearing for the State is negated in view of the well-settled principle of law in the case of “Whirlpool Corporation” (supra). 7. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order dated 09.06.2009 is quashed. 8. If the authority concerned want to proceed further, he may proceed de-novo in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4008 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of.