ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by District Supply Officer, Gumla has been assailed by which in exercise of power conferred under Clause 27(ii) of Chapter-V of Jharkhand Project Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Control Order, 2017” for short) licence No.01/2011 has been cancelled. 2. The petitioner has taken sole ground of quashing the aforesaid order since the same has been passed without following the principle of natural justice. It is a case of the petitioner that no illegality has been committed by the petitioner. If opportunity would have been granted, this order could not have been passed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondent duly sworn by the District Supply Officer, Gumla who has disputed the contention/ground of the petitioner, more particularly the violation of principle of natural justice by making reference of two show causes; one is dated 25.10.2017 and another is dated 22.11.2017 and has submitted that there is no violation of principle of natural justice, hence the ground which has been raised by the petitioner of violation of principle of natural justice is absolutely incorrect. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, it is evident from the material available on record that the petitioner in whose favour licence has been issued being licence No.01/2011 under Control Order, 2017 wherein under Chapter-V a provision has been made under Clause 27(ii) conferring power upon the authority to cancel the licence in case there is allegation of violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and if found to be proved. The petitioner has raised the issue of non-following the principle of natural justice. 5. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, on 7th January, 2019 has raised a preliminary issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that under Control Order, 2017 there is provision of appeal, but learned counsel for the petitioner has raised an issue of maintainability of writ petition since there is violation of principle of natural justice and in support of his argument he has relied upon judgment in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . In terms of the aforesaid order counter affidavit has been filed duly sworn by the District Supply Officer, Gumla wherein reference of two show cause notices have been made for non-maintainability of the writ petition. This Court, after perusing the aforesaid show cause, as has been annexed at Annexure-A dated 26.10.2017 and Annexure A/1 dated 22.11.2017, has found that both the show cause notices have been issued prior to the enquiry which have been referred in the impugned order which was conducted in pursuance to the order passed by the Block Development Officer, Ghagra dated 27.07.2018 and Women Extension Officer, Ghagra dated 25.09.2018 and certain allegations have been found against the petitioner and in view thereof the licence has been cancelled resorting to the power conferred under Clause 27(ii) of Chapter-V of the Control Order, 2017. There is no denial about the position of law that natural justice is the mandate and when any adverse decision which leads to civil consequence, the person against whom the said decision is going to be taken is required to be provided an opportunity of hearing following the principle of natural justice and no person can be compelled without providing an opportunity of being heard. It is also equally settled that show cause notice cannot be said to be a formality and if it is being issued, it has to be taken care of for its proper consideration and consideration can only be said if there is active application of mind either rejecting or allowing the defence taken in reply submitted by the person against whom the show cause notice has been issued but the same is to be reflected on the face of the order and if that is not done, then it will be said that there is no consideration. It is also equally settled that if the order is without any consideration of the show cause notice, the same will be said to be not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. It is also equally settled that if the order is without any consideration of the show cause notice, the same will be said to be not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Here, in the instant case reference of two cause notices have been made, one is dated 25.10.2017 and 22.11.2017 and both the notices are prior to the enquiry conducted with respect to the allegation levelled against the petitioner for violation of terms and conditions of licence since as would be evident from the order dated 25.10.2018, enquiry has been conducted in pursuance to the order dated 25.09.2018 and 01.10.2018 and both orders are subsequent to these two show cause notices and therefore, the ground which has been taken by the State-respondent in the counter affidavit that principle of natural justice has been followed is absolutely a wrong statement. 7. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 is quashed, matter is remitted before the district Supply Officer, Gumla for its further consideration after following the principle of natural justice by providing opportunity to the affected parties. The District Supply Officer, Gumla is directed to take such decision within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order which shall be presented by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of its receipt. 8. With these observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.