IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.202 of 2008 RAM ASHISH RAM, son of Basudeo Ram, Resident of Village-Phesra, P.S.-Rafiganj, District-Aurangabad Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-the Licensing Authority, Aurangabad Respondents ----------- For petitioner :- Mr. N. K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. N. Tiwary For the State :- Mr. Archana Sinha, AC to S.C.12 7/- 21.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner directing the respondents to accept the challan which was deposited without late fine for renewal of the P.D.S. license for the year 2003 and to continue the supply of goods to the petitioner under the Public Distribution System and not to take any punitive action against the petitioner. 3. The claim of the petitioner was that he had fair price shop license No. 6/R/91, which was renewed year after year, and subsequently, for the year 2003, he had to deposit the renewal fees by 31.12.2002, and if he failed to deposit the renewal fees by that time, he could have deposited it by 31.01.2003 with late fine, but the petitioner deposited the renewal fees on 05.01.2003 after obtaining challan on 28.12.2002 without depositing late fine, and hence, the respondent authorities did not accept the same and refused to renew the license of the petitioner. 4. It is further stated that for the subsequent years, 2 namely, 2004,2005,2006 and 2007, the license of the petitioner was renewed after his renewal fees were accepted but thereafter, the authorities stopped supply of goods under the Public Distribution System on the ground that challan for the year 2003 had been deposited without late fine, which could not be legally accepted. In the said circumstances, this writ petition was filed on 02.01.2008. Learned counsel for petitioner relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Krishna Kumar Mediratta vs Phulchand Agarwala & Ors reported in AIR 1977 Supreme Court 984. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was duty bound to deposit late fine as admittedly he did not deposit the renewal fees within the time prescribed, and hence, there was no question for renewal of his license for the year 2003 -04 or for any subsequent year and accordingly, the supply of goods under the Public Distribution System was rightly stopped by the authorities concerned. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal as per the provision of Clause 28 of the Bihar Trade Article ( Licenses Verification )Order 1984 as well as Clause 15 of the Govt. of Bihar , Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 vide Notification, G.S.R. No.1 dated 20.02.2007. Hence, according to learned 3 counsel for respondents, this writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. On considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the admitted fact that after 2003 the license of the petitioner had been regularly renewed from the year 2004 till the year 2007, during which period the concerned articles were supplied to the petitioner under the Public Distribution System by the authorities themselves and also in view of the pendency of this writ petition for such a long period, this Court feels that there is no point in sending the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal which will cause undue delay in the matter. 8. It is an admitted fact that till the year 2002, the petitioner’s license was renewed in accordance with law. So far as renewal of license for the year 2003 is concerned, the time for applying for renewal along with renewal fees was till 31.12.2002 but although, the challan was obtained on 28.12.2002, the same was deposited a week thereafter on 05.01.2003 without any late fine. Although, the provision of law required that if the renewal fee was deposited after 31.12.2002 but before 31.01.2003, it would be accepted with late fine. In the said circumstances, the only charge against the petitioner is that he did not deposit Rs. 2.00 as late fine on 05.01.2003. 9. The Supreme court in case of Krishna Kumar Mediratta vs Phulchand Agarwala & Ors (supra) has held that even if the fees paid was less than what was required due to oversight, the application should not be rejected and the authorities 4 can legally accepted the same subsequently. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law as well as the fact that subsequently for the years 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, the license fees was accepted by the authorities and the license of the petitioner was renewed from time to time, the impugned action of the authorities cannot be justified as they could have accepted the late fine even belatedly. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the authorities are directed to accept the challans for renewal of the license of the petitioner under the Public Distribution System for the year 2003, if the petitioner will deposit the late fine for the said year within three weeks from today. Ashwini/- (S.N. Hussain, J.)