JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 25th January, 2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad- respondent no.2, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order as contained in memo no.418 dated 25th August, 2010 has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in memo no.418 dated 25th August, 2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad-respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner’s PDS licence no.19/JHR/03 has been cancelled with immediate effect. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. Main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the show cause notice as contained in memo no.964 dated 24th July, 2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the Additional Collector (Supply) Dhanbad- respondent no.3 merely mentions regarding the statements of few cardholders attached to the PDS shop of the petitioner that he had distributed foodgrains and kerosene oil once in two months. It, however, does not mention the name of the cardholders/beneficiaries who had allegedly made such statements. Moreover, copies of the said statements of the concerned cardholders were neither furnished to the petitioner along with the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 nor thereafter. Hence, the petitioner was deprived of properly replying the said allegation made by the concerned cardholders. The said aspect of the matter was neither considered by the licensing authority i.e. the respondent no.4 nor by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent no.2. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4, while passing the impugned order as contained in memo no.418 dated 25th August, 2010, merely mentioned the statements of three cardholders, namely, Chandrawati Devi, Krishna Rawani and Videshi Gop Lal, who had allegedly made statements that the petitioner had distributed foodgrains only twice in three months. Curiously enough, it was mentioned by the Additional Collector (Supply), Dhanbad- respondent no.3 in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 that as per the statements of some of the attached cardholders, the petitioner had distributed foodgrains and kerosene oil once in two months. There being apparent inconsistency in the facts mentioned in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 vis-a-vis the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010, cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner is highly arbitrary. There being apparent inconsistency in the facts mentioned in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 vis-a-vis the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010, cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner is highly arbitrary. It was incumbent upon the respondent no.4 to at least provide the statements of concerned cardholders/beneficiaries to the petitioner before taking the decision in the matter. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, disputing and denying the statements made in the writ petition, however, nothing has been stated regarding furnishing the statements of concerned cardholders/ beneficiaries to the petitioner before taking decision to cancel his PDS licence. 6. On perusal of the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the respondent no.4, it appears that the same only mentions the fact regarding statements of three beneficiaries attached to the petitioner’s PDS shop i.e. Chandrawati Devi, Krishna Rawani and Videshi Gop Lal, who alleged that the petitioner had distributed foodgrains only twice in three months. 7. Since, the basis of issuance of the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 was the statements of the attached cardholders/beneficiaries, according to which the petitioner had distributed foodgrains and kerosene oil once in two months, the respondent no.4 was under obligation to provide the copies of the said statements to him before passing the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010, as the same was not provided at the time of issuance of show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010. 8. Otherwise also, the Respondent no.4 should not have ignored furnishing the copies of statements of the said beneficiaries particularly keeping in view that the petitioner in his show cause reply dated 31st July, 2010 had clearly stated that he had distributed the foodgrains and kerosene oil in presence of deputed government officials and the sale register was also regularly signed by them. The petitioner had also denied the allegation made against him that he had distributed foodgrains and kerosene oil only once in two months. Moreover, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the respondent no.4 does not contain any reason whatsoever in brushing aside the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner. On that score alone, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 9. Moreover, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 passed by the respondent no.4 does not contain any reason whatsoever in brushing aside the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner. On that score alone, the impugned order dated 25th August, 2010 cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, set aside. 9. The order dated 25th January, 2019 passed by the respondent no.2 in T.A.L. Appeal No.01 of 2019 merely mentions that during inspection of the petitioner’s PDS shop done by the respondent no.3, the same was found closed and as per the statements made by some of the beneficiaries, the petitioner had supplied foodgrains to the beneficiaries only twice in three months. Curiously enough, the allegation that the PDS shop of the petitioner had been found closed during inspection conducted on 20th July, 2010 was not mentioned in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010. Moreover, the observation made by the respondent no.2 in the order dated 25th January, 2019 that as per the statements of the attached cardholders/ beneficiaries, the petitioner had distributed foodgrains only “twice in three months” is also contrary to the allegation made in the show cause notice dated 24th July, 2010 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner had distributed foodgrains and kerosene oil only “once in two months”. Hence, the order dated 25th January, 2019 passed by the respondent no.2 suffers from non-application of mind and the same cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, the said order is quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent no.4 is directed to issue an order with respect to restoration of the petitioner’s PDS licence within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.