IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.94 of 2011 ==================================================== 1. LALAN SINGHSon of late Kapildeo Singh. 2.Rambha Devi,Wife of Lalan Singh. Both R/o Vill-Bahrauli,P.S.- Mashrakh,District-Saran. Petitioners ------------------------ Appellants. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra. 3.The District Magistrate, Saran. 4.The Sub Divisional Officer, Marhawrrah, District-Saran. 5.The Executive Magistrate, Marhawrrah, District-Saran------Respondents. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s: Mr. MAHESH NARAYAN PARBAT For the Respondent/s: Mr. RAJENDRA KR. JHA GP18 ==================================================== ----------------- 5. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. According to learned counsel for the appellants the licence of the appellants under Public Distribution System has been cancelled mainly because he produced photo copy of certain documents and not the original documents. According to learned counsel, clear and specific opportunity should have been given to produce the original documents. It has further been submitted that the allegations appear to be motivated and false. After going through the relevant materials contained in the records of the case including order cancelling the licence of the appellants, the appellate order and the revisional order which confirm the original order, it is evident that the shop could not be 2 inspected because it was found closed and subsequently the allegations made by some of the villagers have been relied upon by the authorities. There was a clear direction in the show cause notice dated 22.04.2006 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that the appellants should submit stock register, sale register and cash memos relating to his shop. That direction was not followed as noted by order cancelling his licence. The plea that photo copy of relevant papers was sufficient and if the original registers, are required further opportunity should have been granted, does not appear to be of substance. Moreover, the observation regarding non-deposit of the registers and cash memos is in addition to other allegations which were mentioned in the show cause notice and constitute grounds for cancelling the licence. The Writ Court did not interfere with the impugned orders and we find no good ground to take a different view. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Nitesh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (V. Nath, J.)