IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12727 of 2006 RAMA BALLAV SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 2 10.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner states that without initiating a proceeding for cancellation of licence of PDS dealership, the impugned order dated 15.9.2006 has been passed. The petitioner submits that the order dated 9.8.2006 contained in Annexure-2 was a preliminary inquiry seeking explanation as to why appropriate proceeding may not be initiated. He further submits that in case the licensing authority was dissatisfied with his show cause, then in terms of memo no.453 dated 9.8.2006, contained in Annexure-2, he ought to have initiated a proceeding for cancellation of licence. However, he did not do so and instead he passed the impugned order dated 15.9.2006 canceling the licence itself. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner can raise all these points before the Appellate Authority and it is not a case where the impugned order has been passed at the dictates of the superior authority. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, even assuming that there may be some substance in the contention of the petitioner, the latter should first approach the Appellate Authority raising all the points raised in this writ petition. This court further observes that as the petitioner was - 2 - KHAN pursuing remedy before this court since the year 2006, if an application for condonation of delay is filed, the same would be considered sympathetically. With the aforesaid liberty, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)