IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4998 of 2008 Raj Kumar Malakar, son of Late Ganesh Bhagat, village Salempur, PS Barachatti, District Gaya – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3) The Dist. Magistrate, Gaya. 4) The Subdivisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya. 5) District Supply Officer, Gaya. 6) Additional Dy. Supply Officer, Sherghati, Dist. Gaya. 7) Block Supply Officer, Barachatti, Dist. Gaya – Respondents. 5 4.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Before stating any facts regarding this case, this court may record that the petitioner was made accused in a criminal case under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The trial was conducted and the petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide judgment and order, dated 15.2.2007 passed by the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati. The institution of an FIR led to the cancellation of the agreement of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that order before the Subdivisional Officer who dismissed the petitioner’s case. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, that too was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the appellate order the petitioner filed CWJC No. 13275/2002 which was disposed of on 7.3.2003 with an observation that the petitioner should file a revision application (Annexure 4). Accordingly the petitioner filed a revision application. The order dated 9.9.2004 is the revisional order contained in Annexure 5. The Divisional Commissioner by the aforesaid order has remanded the matter back to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate by order, 2 dated 29.5.2007 directed the licensing authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petitioner thereafter moved the licensing authority who disposed of his case on 3.7.2008 after the filing of the writ petition by stating that the petitioner was not entitled for renewal of the agreement as he had not deposited t he fee for renewal of his license for the year 2007. The agreement of the petitioner was cancelled in 2001. The order of the licensing authority, namely, the Block Supply Officer, discloses that the petitioner had deposited license fee for the year 2001 onward to 2006. An interlocutory application has been filed by the petitioner. Annexure 11 series indicates that the petitioner had deposited renewal fee for the license from 2001 right up to 2007. The order, dated 3.7.2008, therefore, appears to have been passed without application of mind. Even otherwise, if it was found that the allegations against the petitioner were not true and proved in a criminal proceeding and that the petitioner with due diligence had deposited renewal fee since 2001 onwards without break, it does not stand to reason that his application for renewal of the agreement should be rejected on such flimsy and erroneous grounds. None of the authorities have found that the petitioner had contravened any condition of the license and as such I find no merit in the stand of the State Government that the order as contained in Annexure ‘A’ of the counter affidavit is justified. Counsel for the State objects to the petitioner’s prayer to quash Annexure-A on the ground that no prayer has been made 3 by the petitioner. It is well settled that the court can mould the relief in order to do complete justice between the parties. I, therefore, quash the order refusing to renew the agreement of the petitioner and direct that the petitioner should appear before the licensing authority within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and produce documents showing deposit of renewal fee up to 2007. In case the petitioner appears within the aforesaid period and produces the documents to show renewal up to 2007, the licensing authority should grant license / renew his license provided he deposits the renewal fee. Accordingly, the order dated 3.7.2008 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)