IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2324 of 2006 KUMAR NAV JEEVAN DIWAKAR, Son of Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village Lodipur, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura. -------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sub-divisional Officer Cum Licensing Authority, Sheikhpura -----------Respondents -------------------- For the Petitioner- Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. N. Tiwari, Advocate For the State- Mrs. Shaliui Raut, Ac to G.A. 3 -------------------- 2. 04.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by cyclostyle order bearing Memo No. 38-7 dated 19.1.2006 whereunder his fair price shop dealer’s Licence No. 2 of 2004 has been cancelled on the ground that the licence was granted infracting the norms of reservation as also without observing the instructions of the department contained in letter no. 3874 dated 3.12.2003. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that his request for grant of licence was approved by the licensing authority on 11.11.2003 and such fact is evident from Annexure- 1, whereunder petitioner was directed to deposit the licence fee of Rs. 250/- . 3. In the light of the instruction 2 contained in communication dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure-1) petitioner deposited the licence fee whereafter licence no. 2 of 2004 dated 28.1.2004 was issued in form-‘x ’ which is contained in Annexure-2. Later petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 30.12.2005 asking him to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled as the same has been issued ignoring the instruction of the Government contained in letter no. 3874 dated 3.12.2003 as approval dated 11.11.2003 granted by the licensing authority was not preceded by the resolution of the District Selection Committee. In response to the notice dated 30.12.2005 (Annexure- 2), petitioner submitted reply dated 7.1.2006 Annexure-3 categorically stating that the departmental instruction bearing Memo No. 3874 dated 3.12.2003 shall have no application to his case as the proposal for grant of Public Distribution System licence to him was accepted by the licencing authority on 11.11.2003 by which date the departmental instruction dated 3.12.2003 was not issued and as the proposal was accepted earlier the subsequent departmental instruction will have no retrospective application to the case of the petitioner. 3 In this connection it is also pointed out that the instruction of the Government dated 3.12.2003 has no legal basis as there is no provision for any selection committee under unification order of 1984 which was introduced for the first time under Fair Price Shop order 2007. In any case it is well settled that executive instructions can have no retrospective application. 4. From the impugned order dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-4) it does not appear that the submission noted above has been considered by the licensing authority. Accordingly the order of the licensing authority dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-4) is quashed with a direction to the licensing authority to consider the submission noted above and also incorporated in paragraph-3 of the show cause reply dated 7.1.2006 in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The application is disposed of. Anand Kr. ( V. N. Sinha, J.)