ORDER : Ravi Ranjan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well the learned Advocate General along with SC-VII for the respondent-State. 2. This appeal is directed against the decision dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6672 of 2012, by which, the writ petition filed by the licensee-appellant assailing the order of cancellation of his license and the appellate and revisional orders, which were also against him, has been dismissed finding no merit in the writ petition and also there is concurrent finding of the original as well as appellate and revisional authorities. 3. At the time of hearing, it is submitted on behalf of the licensee-appellant that the show cause notice dated 19.07.2010 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, which stands appended as Annexure-4 to the instant appeal and was also appended with the writ petition, discloses that the basis of issuance of show cause notice was a report after physical verification by the Block Supply Officer, Hunterganj, who found that P.D.S. shop was closed and the licensee-writ petitioner did not produce the relevant documents for inspection including the distribution register etc. and that apart several beneficiaries also made complaint regarding him for irregular supply of the food-grains at the lesser quantity. However, a copy of such verification report was not appended or enclosed with the show cause notice so that a proper reply to the show cause notice could have been filed by the licensee-writ petitioner. That apart, it is also urged that there is no consideration of his reply given to the show cause notice. 4. Per contra, learned Advocate General submits that not only a first show cause notice but again a show cause notice subsequently was issued to him and he had given evasive reply to the show cause notice. 5. The aforesaid submission leads to further question which is to be put before him. If a show cause notice was issued then what was the requirement for again issuing of a show cause notice on the self-same grounds. From the copy of the show cause notices, which were issued to the licensee-writ petitioner, it does not appear that any report of Block Supply Officer, Hunterganj stood enclosed with the same. If a show cause notice was issued then what was the requirement for again issuing of a show cause notice on the self-same grounds. From the copy of the show cause notices, which were issued to the licensee-writ petitioner, it does not appear that any report of Block Supply Officer, Hunterganj stood enclosed with the same. In case, it is not enclosed then the case of the writ petitioner would be correct that in absence of that, he would not be in a position to properly respond to it by filing a proper reply. 6. Apart from the above, it appears that reply to both the show cause notices were filed by the licensee-writ petitioner but from perusal of the impugned original order as contained in Annexure-6 to the appeal, which was passed by the Licensing Authority i.e., Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, it appears that heavy reliance has been placed upon the report/verification report of the Block Supply Officer, a copy of which was never supplied to the licensee-writ petitioner. Not only that the reply of the writ petitioner has been considered in a single sentence that by filing such reply, he had tried to save him and also tried to prove that he was not guilty but the same was not accepted. 7. In our considered view, such type of consideration of reply to the show cause notice would be termed no consideration at all as the most stringent action of cancellation of license was being taken by the Licensing Authority, then in such a situation, it ought to have considered the reply in a proper manner and dealt with the ground raised by him one by one. On this score alone, the original impugned order would not survive. 8. On this score alone, the original impugned order would not survive. 8. It is not in dispute that consideration always means active application of mind and once a show cause notice is being issued to the concerned, it is incumbent upon the issuing authority to consider the said show cause by application of mind and the application of mind, would only to be said if the point which has been agitated in the show cause would be considered and depending upon the case either it will be rejected or it will be accepted then only it would be said to be application of mind, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vrs. A. Masilamani, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph 19, which reads hereunder as: “19. The word “consider” is of great significance. The dictionary meaning of the same is, “to think over”, “to regard as”, or “deem to be”. Hence, there is a clear connotation to the effect that there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term “consider” postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record. The order of the authority itself should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority and proceed to affirm its order.” It is evident from the impugned order passed by the original authority that although there is reference of reply furnished by the writ petitioner to the show cause notices but only on saying that the reply has not been found to be satisfactory, the stringent action of cancellation of license has been taken and hence, we are of the considered view that the reply furnished by the writ petitioner to the explanation sought for cannot be construed to be consideration of the reply. As a consequence, the impugned order has to be held to be suffering from the evil of not following the principles of natural justice and further to be suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. As a consequence, the impugned order has to be held to be suffering from the evil of not following the principles of natural justice and further to be suffering from the vice of arbitrariness. The aforesaid principle of law has been dealt with by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Umesh Chandra Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999 (1) B.L.J 548. The Division Bench, after holding as above has gone to the extent of, by taking reliance of the judgment rendered in the case of Ramnandan Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1983 PLJR 266 , laying down the principle that when initial order cancelling the license is invalid, such invalidity cannot be cured by the fact that the petitioners had an opportunity to say whatever they would have to say before the appellate or the revisional authority. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.L. Trehan and Ors. Vrs. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1989 Supreme Court 568, wherein it has been laid down that a post-decisional hearing will not cure defect of not affording pre-decisional hearing. 9. However, apart from the above, there cannot be such type of proceeding that if an allegation is made then the licensee, who is responding to the allegation made, either in the report of the Block Supply Officer or in the show cause notice, would have to prove that he is innocent rather the party or the authority, who is trying to prove his guilt, would have to prove not in a manner of which criminal trial is conducted but in some manner after considering some evidence that has to be proved. 10. The Block Supply Officer has relied heavily on the issue that many beneficiaries have made complaint against the licensee-writ petitioner but not a single witness appears to have been called and examined, either by filing an affidavit or otherwise by the Licensing Authority, as same does not appear from the original impugned order passed by the Licensing Authority at all. 11. 11. In such a situation, the report of the Block Supply Officer would be considered only in a form of allegation which could not be proved by any evidence and strong suspicion or allegation would be meaningless, if there is nothing on record to corroborate it. 12. Having held so, we are of the view that the original impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. So far as the appellate and revisional orders are concerned, they also suffer from the similar vice and it is well established principle of law that the wrong created by the original authority or a lacuna which is there in the original proceeding cannot be filled by the appellant forum. 14. Thus in our view, it becomes a fit case, in which, the orders impugned are required to be set aside. 15. Ordered accordingly. 16. However, the matter is remitted back to the Licensing Authority for fresh consideration in accordance with Law. It is made clear that a copy of the inspection/verification report along with all necessary documents, for example the statements of the beneficiaries, if any, made before the Block Supply Officer, should be supplied to the licensee-writ petitioner and he would be granted fresh opportunity to answer the show cause notice and after considering his reply, an order in accordance with law should be passed by the Licensing Authority considering the materials/evidence available on record. 17. This exercise should be done within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 18. This appeal stands allowed to the extent, as indicated above.