IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.816 of 2011 Ramesh Prasad Singh son of Late Deep Narain Singh, resident of village and P.O.Sarath, P.S. Goradih (Sabour), District-Bhagalpur………Appellant (Petitioner in the writ application) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhagalpur. 4. District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur. 5. Block Supply Officer, Goradih, District-Bhagalpur. 6. Block Development Officer-cum-Anchal Adhikari, Goradih, District-Bhagalpur…………….……………………Respondents. ----------- 2. 25.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order of the Writ Court whereby no interference has been made with the order of the Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority as a result thereof the license of the appellant under Public Distribution System stands cancelled. An attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to show that on account of acquittal in Criminal case vide judgment contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, the Appellate Authority ought to have given benefit to the appellant. We have gone through the judgment of the criminal court contained in Annexure-2. It shows that benefit of doubt has been given to the appellant because during the course of trial only one formal witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution and in absence of the informant neither formal F.I.R. could be proved nor any witness was examined on the merits of the case. In our considered view there is no finding on any issue 2 of fact given by the Criminal Court which may create difficulty in the way of Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority to maintain their findings. The Writ Court has rightly declined to go into issues of fact after it was found that there was no infirmity in the decision making process. In the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the views of the Writ Court because we find from the appellate order contained in Annexure-5 that not only the shop was found closed without any intimation, in fact, the keys and different Registers relating to the shop were also not made available on the plea that while going for treatment the appellant had taken away everything with him. The number of bags counted by the Authorities from the window showed much lesser quantity of grain in the stock than what was required. Subsequently, the required quantity appears to have been replenished in the shop. In our considered view the appeal has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Mkc/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)