IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.623 of 2010 1. RAM DAS SAH S/O LATE DHANI SAH R/O VILL- AND P.O- SALHA BUJURG, P.S- BITHAN, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ROSERA SUB DIVISION, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR 4. THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ROSERA, SUB DIVISIONAL, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, COMP BITHAN BLOCK, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv. Advocate for the State : Mr. Anuj Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-4. ----------- 2/ 14/03/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner held a P.D.S. licence No.2 of 1992. Cancellation proceedings were initiated in Case No.12 of 2000 and after consideration of the cause shown by him, it was cancelled on 18.7.2000. He filed Appeal No.527 of 2000 which was rejected on 7.7.2007. Revision No.36/07 against the appellate order has also been rejected on 21.7.2009. Assailing the orders learned counsel for the petitioner finds it difficult to point out any infirmity in the decision making process as far as any denial of opportunity etc. are concerned, but he seeks to urge that the order of cancellation dated 18.7.2000 issued by the Additional Assistant District Supply Officer, Rosera, Samastipur was completely without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Clause-11(i) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order,1984 as it existed when the proceedings were initiated read with Clause- 2 27(c) to submit that it was only the Sub-divisional Officer as the licensing authority who was competent to cancel the licence. The submission, therefore, is that the very original impugned order is without authority of law and, therefore, the subsequent orders in the appellate and revisional jurisdiction cannot improve upon the same. Learned counsel for the State points out from the impugned order that it says in no uncertain terms that it was being issued as directed. This has been explained in paragraph-19 of the counter affidavit that the Additional District Supply Officer only communicated the order of the Sub-divisional Officer to the petitioner. The Court finds that the impugned order of cancellation itself states that it was being issued as directed. Had the impugned order not contained this recital, matters may have been entirely different. Who had given instructions stands explained in paragraph- 19 of the counter affidavit. The cancellation order having been issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, the Licensing Authority, the Court finds no merit in the writ application which is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)