IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10806 of 2005 1. AMAR PRASAD YADAV SON OF SUDAMA PD. YADAV, RESIDENT OF NAWGAWA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN. 2. SUNAINA DEVI, WIFE OF EKBALI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILL. CHOUMUKHA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN. 3. SHANKAR BIN, SON OF LATE YADU BIN, RESIDENT OF VILL. BAHUARWA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 4. ANIRUDHA PRASAD, SON OF GOPAL PD., RESIDENT OF VILL. MATHIA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 5. MADAN PRASAD, SON OF RAGHUNANDAN PD., RESIDENT OF VILL. SIRISIA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 6. INDU DEVI, WIFE OF BINOD PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILL. MACHCHARGAWAN, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 7. PRAMOD KUMAR, SON OF HARI SHANKAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILL. PIPARPATI, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 8. REKHA SRIVASTAVA, WIFE OF TRILOKI PD.,RESIDENT OF VILL. BAGAHI, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 9. SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE BHAGRASHAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILL. KHUTWARIA JONALPUR, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 10. KASHI PRASAD YADAV, SON OF YAMUNA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILL. KAULAPUR, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 11. PRAVA DEVI WIFE OF MANAGER TIWARI, RESIDENT OF VILL. BAGAHI PURAINA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 12. YASHODA DEVI, WIFE OF KEDAR YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILL. MADARPUR, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 13. BIKARMA SAH, SON OF CHANDRIKA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILL. PAREGAWA, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN 14. URMILA DEVI, W/O OM PRAKASH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILL. SHISHWA BHUMIHAR, P.S. YOGAPATTI, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN…………………...PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, BETTIAH………………………………...RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------- - 2 - 06/ 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition had been filed on 29.08.2005 after serving a copy of the writ petition upon learned counsel for the respondents, but no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents although this case was adjourned thrice on 26.07.2011, 25.08.2011 and 19.09.2011 for filing counter affidavit and it was mentioned in the last order dated 19.09.2011 that the adjournment was granted to the respondents as a last chance. In spite of the said facts and circumstances neither any counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents nor their learned counsel is appearing to oppose this writ petition although his name has been mentioned in the daily cause list. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure-1series) by which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar within the district of West Champaran cancelled the petitioners’ licences/agreements for carrying on business as licencees of Public Distribution System under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 for the sake of brevity) on the ground that their appointment to carry on business and the grant of licences to them as P.D.S. dealers was made after 08.04.1992, whereas the same should have been filled up from the people coming from the community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe only. Licences of the petitioners were cancelled on the said ground on the directions of the Collector of West Champaran. - 3 - 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforesaid licences were granted to the petitioners in years 1997 and thereafter and they were doing their business as P.D.S. dealers since then and there is no allegation that at any point of time they have violated any of the terms and conditions of the licences or the agreements or the provisions of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984. It is stated that Clause-11 of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 gives power to cancel the licence but no such clause has been included on the basis of which the licences of the petitioners have been sought to be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the licences of the petitioners have been cancelled only on the basis of a circular issued by the State Government and the said circular has been wrongly interpreted by the authorities, as from the said circular it is clear that the Government never intended to allot all the shops from 8th April, 1992 to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community only. He also avers that the intention of the State Government was to see that the proper representation in allotment of the shops are also made to the people coming from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. Accordingly 14 % of the shops were aimed to be given to the members of the Scheduled Caste and 10% of the shops to the community of the Scheduled Tribe and to complete the said target it was stated by the State Government that to equalize the number of shops to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe the shops be given in future to the - 4 - members of the said community. It is also claimed that there are totally 124 P.D.S. dealers including the petitioners in Jogapatti Block out of whom 39 dealers come from SC/ST community i.e. much more than 24% dealers under the P.D.S. and hence there was no need to cancel petitioners’ appointment and to increase reservation from 24% to 100%. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the Collector, West Champaran held a meeting on 26th August, 2004 and directed that all the shops allotted after 08.04.1992 to the persons of community other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe be cancelled and the same may be allotted to the persons coming from the community of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It is also claimed that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bettiah Sadar issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 27th June, 2005 asking them as to why their licences be not cancelled in the light of direction of the Collector and the State Government because the petitioners were granted licences after 08.04.1992 and the petitioners do not come from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were not aware about the decision taken by the Collector in his meeting dated 26th August, 2004, rather they came to know that on 02nd July, 2005 the Collector, West Champaran issued a letter to all the Sub-Divisional Officers of the district including Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar Bettiah referring his letter dated 14th September, 2004 to cancel all the shops of the P.D.S. dealers - 5 - appointed after 08.04.1992 to the persons coming from the community other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. He also claims that the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Collector never cared to look into the show cause filed by the petitioners and/or to hear the petitioners about how many shops in Jogapatti Block have been given to the persons coming from community other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe under the Public Distribution System and whether ratio fixed by the State Government for allotting the shops to the community of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe has been complied with or not. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is quite apparent that the State Government never intended to allot all the P.D.S. shops from 08.04.1992 to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and hence issuance of any such direction had no value in the eyes of law. 9. It is also apparent that there is no allegation that the petitioners have violated the terms of the agreement and the provisions of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 and hence there was no occasion for the authority concerned to take such drastic steps against the petitioners. 10. Furthermore according to the clauses of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 the order of cancellation of licences had to be passed by the Licensing Authority, namely the Sub-Divisional Officer on his own accord and not on the directions of the Collector specially when the Collector is the appellate authority under the provision of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984. - 6 - 11. From the facts and circumstances of the case it is also apparent that the authorities have been taking steps and appointing dealers under the Public Distribution System from all the communities as per the specific quotas and such steps taken by the authorities even when the quota of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe is completely filled up, would cause irreparable loss to the members of the other communities including the petitioners. 12. In view of the aforesaid claims raised by learned counsel for the petitioners which are not contradicted by the respondents, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.07.2005 (Annexure-1 series) is hereby quashed and the authorities are directed to continue with the petitioners on the basis of licences already given to them. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)