JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mastar Akash, the learned AC to SC-VII appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by respondent no.3-Sub-Divisional Officer whereby the PDS shop of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was implicated in a criminal case in the month of September, 2012 on the basis of the report of one Block Head, Nawadih Bazar in which he has alleged that he has been informed that one middle school, government rice of BPL was kept. The further allegation was made that rice has illegally been transported from one place to another. There are certain other allegations. The case was registered under sections 414/411 IPC and section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The petitioner has been granted bail on 07.02.2013 in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the criminal case has already been challenged before this Court in which stay is operating in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner’s PDS shop was suspended vide order dated 20.09.2012. When nothing was done, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No4002 of 2013. Notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was also submitted reply however no final decision was taken and this fact has been considered by this Court in earlier proceeding in W.P.(C) No.4002 of 2013 which was disposed of by order dated 20.01.2015 directing the respondent –State to take decision in the matter within a period of six weeks in accordance with law. Pursuant to that, the S.D.O has taken a decision by impugned order dated 20.02.2015 which is impugned in this writ petition. Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He further submits that the High Court has not directed the authority concerned to pass any order without following the due process of law and in that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. He further submits that the High Court has not directed the authority concerned to pass any order without following the due process of law and in that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is provision of appeal under Order 15 of the Bihar Control Orders and he submits that the petitioner may kindly be directed to approach the appellate authority. When this Court made a query from the learned counsel for the respondent that as to whether without following the principles of natural justice any order can be passed or not, he is not in a position to substantiate the impugned order dated 20.02.2015. 5. As a cumulative effect of above discussions and considering that there is no opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order. This order also did not speak as to under what section this order has been passed. The appeal is provided if the order is passed under section 6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act. It is not clear from the order that this order has been passed under which section of the Essential Commodities Act. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order cannot sustain in the eye of law. The impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the authority concerned to decide afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. With the above observation and direction, the instant petition being W.P.(C) No.2148 of 2015 is disposed of.