IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9323 of 2006 KISHORI LAL GUPTA son of Late Deolal Sah, resident of Village Khoodaganj, Police Station- Khoodaganj, Sub-Division- Hilsa, District- Nalanda. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda (Biharsharif). 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District Nalanda. . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 3/ 10.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 01.05.2006 passed by the respondent District Magistrate, Nalanda in Supply Appeal No. 11 of 2004, affirming the order of cancellation of license dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda vide Memo no. 1878 as contained in Annexure-5. A show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner vide Memo no. 1030 dated 21.06.2003 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa informing as to why the license of petitioner be not cancelled, in view of the allegations contained in enquiry report dated 10.04.2003 made by Block Development Officer and Block Supply Officer, Islampur. In course of inspection, the inspecting team found the shop closed on 10.04.2003 at 11.30 A.M. He also did not find necessary price list and stock register. Further more, some consumers namely Krishna Chaudhary, Shiv Kumar Goswami and others complained that items were supplied at a higher rate and further more entire items were not supplied. The petitioner filed its show-cause stating that he had to leave this shop for some urgent work. However, he made available the - 2 - supply register and cash memo’s as required by the licensing authority. He submits that some of the consumers have sworn affidavit denying having made any such allegations against the petitioner. He submits that the respondents in the impugned orders have over-looked these aspects of the matter. Learned counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit and in paragraph 8 it has been stated that the report of Block Development Officer and Block Supply Officer, Islampur proved that the petitioner was supplying less quantity of K. Oil than the fixed quantity and charging higher price, which is violation of Section 16 of Bihar Trade Articles (Unification Orders) 1984. The dealer was not issuing cash Memo to the consumers, which is in violation of Section 17 of Bihar Trade Articles (Unification Orders) 1984. The learned counsel further stated that the closure of shop without prior notice is a serious irregularity and is violation of the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court. He further averred that the charges of irregularity for distribution of K. Oil and sell of commodities in black market also stands proved. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case under Essential Commodities Act has been filed against the petitioner. After hearing the parties, it appears that pursuant to the direction issued by the Licensing authority, the petitioner had made available the copy of the cash memo’s, distribution register etc. In such circumstances, the issue is whether the petitioner has given reasonable explanation for not having kept the shop open on - 3 - 10.04.2003 at 11.30 A.M. and whether the consumers had any grievance against the petitioner or not. Petitioner is now relying an affidavit sworn by the consumers. In this view of the matter, I remit the matter to the Licensing authority, who after noticing these consumers would enquire from them whether the petitioner did not supply the full materials or whether they charged higher prices for it. After making enquiry the licensing authority will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)