IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6922 of 2009 Shashi Kala Devi, wife of Kanchan Kumari Nilam, village Commissionary, Ward No. 7, PS and District Sheikhpura – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Food Supply & Commerce Department, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Dist. Magistrate, Sheikhpura. 3) The S.D.M cum Licensing Officer, Sheikhpura. 4) The Dist. Supply Officer, Rood & Civil Supply & Commence, Dist. Sheikhpura. 5) The Block Supply Officer, Food Supply and Commerce, Dist. Sheikhpura – Respondents. 4 9.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order contained in Annexure 4 by which his license has been cancelled by the Subdivisional Officer, Sheikhpura on the ground that the procedure as laid down under letter no. 3874, dated 3.12.2003 has not been complied with while granting license to the petitioner. The petitioner had applied for grant of license against a vacancy. His case was considered by the Subdivisional Officer and recommended to the District Magistrate subject to the fact that the committee as per letter no. 3074, dated 3.12.2003 should be constituted before granting approval of the license to the petitioner. Subsequent to this the license was granted vide Annexure 3on 2.11.2004 and cancelled by the order impugned, dated 19.1.2006. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per clause (4) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, there is no provision which envisages for constitution of a committee for the purposes of examining the desirability of grant 2 of licence under the public distribution system. It is, therefore, submitted that the requirement of constitution of a committee vide the Government’s letter no. 3838, dated 6.12.1997 is in violation of 1984 Order. It is further submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner had in any way misused the terms of his license or that he had obtained the license after practicing fraud. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Subdivisional Officer to the District Magistrate. It is presumed that the District Magistrate would have examined the entire matter and returned the file back to the Subdivisional Officer who is the licensing authority under 1984 Order. The provision for constitution of a committee consisting of the District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, the Subdivisional Officer and the concerned Registered Societies, Assistant Supply Officers and/or Incharge Supply Officer seems to be for the purpose of recommending the names of the persons to be granted license. Be that as it may, considering that there is no allegation against the petitioner and that no one else has been appointed in her place and further that she comes within the extremely backward category, the District Magistrate may recommend the name of the petitioner to the freshly constituted committee under the 2007 Order. The committee should pass an appropriate order with respect to the grant of license to the petitioner. The District Magistrate who is the Chairman of that committee will ensure that the meeting committee takes place within three months on receipt of a copy of this case. The 3 petitioner’s case should be considered and recommendations made within the aforesaid period to the Subdivisional Officer who is the licensing authority under the Act for him to take appropriate action in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)