IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5011 of 2011 RAMESH PRASAD SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 08/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Public Distribution System Licence of the petitioner was suspended for violation of conditions of licence and subsequently cancelled. A criminal case also instituted under the Essential Commodities Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the cancellation of the licence by the S.D.O. and before the order of the Appellate Authority upholding cancellation the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. The grounds for cancellation of the licence and the criminal case being the same, the petitioner on acquittal in the criminal case had filed an application before the Appellate Authority which has not been considered. Strong reliance is placed on Clause-13 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 under which the proceedings were held to submit that under the proviso upon acquittal the licensing authority should have ordered restoration of the licence. The Court on perusal of the order of cancellation and the appellate order finds that it is not based on the 2 criminal case, but for violation of the conditions of the licence. That there may have been a criminal case also is an entirely different matter. The standard of proof required in a criminal prosecution and in a proceeding on the administrative side for cancellation of a licence for violation of the conditions of agreement shall be entirely different matters. No material has been placed before this Court that the petitioner even raised this objection before the Appellate Authority. The Court while considering the order of cancellation upheld in appeal does not sit as a super appellate authority over the appellate authority. The power of judicial review shall not be exercised if there has been no infirmity in the decision making process. The power of this Court in judicial review shall not extend to re-examination of facts. No infirmity in the decision making process has been urged. The Court is not persuaded that the writ application calls for any interference on the ground of acquittal in the criminal case as from the order of the criminal court itself it is manifest that there has been no acquittal on merits, but on benefit of doubt. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.) 3