IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9664 of 2006 SHRAWAN KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . ----------- 02. 19.05.2011 By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order vide Memo No. 520, dated 13.07.2006 passed by the S.D.O., Barh contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, by which the notification has been cancelled which contained the notification relating to one Sri Damodar Mahto whose name figures at serial No.3 in Annexure-1 and it is shown in front of his name. He has died in the year 2000. It has been mentioned that cancellation has been made by the impugned order on the death of the licence holders whose names are mentioned in Annexure-1 on account of their death. During his lifetime Sri Damodar Mahto got the name of Sri Shrawan Kumar entered with him in the license. The entry reads as under: Þvuqe.My inkf/kdkjh ck<+ ds vkns”k Kkikad 1103 fnukad 31-12-96 ds vkyksd esa Jh neksnj egrks tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds foØsrk okMZ ua0 17 eksdkek ds lkFk muds Hkrhtk Jh Jo.k dqekj oYn nsouk0 egrks dk uke vuqKfIr iath ,oa vuqKfIr esa vafdr fd;k tkrk gSA** 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of addition made under Clause-9 of the control order by making entry of the name of the petitioner, the petitioner became co-licensee and on account of death of Damodar Mahto, the petitioner is fully entitled to run the shop. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Clause-9 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 reads as under: “Addition and alteration to licence.- The Licensing Authority (after giving due opportunity) may make necessary additions, deletions and alterations in the entries made in the licence relating to godown, place of business, names of partners, trade articles etc., on the application of the licensee[xxx].” The licence is granted under Clause-4 of the Control Order to the dealers. Dealer is defined under Sub-clause (e) of Clause-2 of the Control Order which reads as under: “dealer” means a person, a firm, an association of persons or a Co-operative Society other than a National and State-level Co- operative Society, engaged in the business of 3 purchases, sale or storage for sale of any trade article whether or not in conjunction with any other business and includes his representative or agent but does not include- i. a person who holds or is in possession of agriculture land under any tenure or any capacity and on which he raises or has raised crop of food grains, oilseeds or whole pulses; ii. a manufacturer of sugar; iii. Hawkers engaged in the purchase and sale of non-controlled cloth; According to the aforesaid definition there are three categories of the dealer: I. A person (real person), II. A firm (An association of persons), III. A cooperative society other than national and state level cooperative society. A joint reading of the definition of „dealer‟ as classified above, as contained under Sub- clause (e) of Clause-2 and joint reading with Clause-9, 4 addition of names of the partners clearly indicates that the addition of names of the partners can be done only in case of firm or association of persons. Addition of names cannot be done in case of a licence granted in favour of a real person because under the control order a licence is to be granted to an applicant and applicant shall be a dealer within the meaning of definition clause of the dealer. The real person being licensee cannot admit a co-licensee, only under Clause-9 the names of the partners are to be added in case of a firm or association of persons not in case of a real person, who is an individual dealer. Thus, the order adding the name of the petitioner was without jurisdiction void ab initio. Even assuming the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being the co-licensee cannot be allowed to continue to run the shop under the licence in view of the death of the original licensee. However, it is provided that the petitioner‟s application for grant of fresh application may be considered sympathetically. If he falls within the purview of compassionate ground, petition shall be filed within a period of one month from the date of 5 receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. Thus, the petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. Mkr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. )