IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12250 of 2006 ==================================================== JITENDRA ROY, son on Bidarath Roy, R/o village Jalalpur Kala, P.O. Bishunpura District Gopalganj - Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Commissioner $ Secretary, Department of Food & Supply & commerce 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj - Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s: Mr. ASHUTOSH JHA Mr. NARENDRA PANDEY Mr. BIJOY KANT MISHRA For the State : Mr. Raj Kamal, A.C. to S.C. 9 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ---- 2 04.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure 4 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj, vide memo no. 885 dated 14.8.2006, whereby the license of the petitioner, has issued for Public Distribution System (P.D.S.), has been suspended till his wife remains in office as Member of Panchayat Samiti in accordance 2 with circular as contained in letter no. 5107 dated 6.12.2001 as well as letter no. 1543 dated 4.4.2002. Learned counsel challenges the aforesaid order on the ground that no notice was issued to him before passing of that order. However, he neither challenges the aforesaid circulars, whereby the direction had been given to the concerned to suspend the license till the spouse of license holder remain in office as elected Mukhia, Sarpanch, Ward Member, Member of Zila Parishad as well as Member of Panchayat Samiti nor has disputed the fact that his wife had been elected as Member of Panchayat Samiti. Learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid circulars have been earlier challenged before this court and have been held to be valid vide order dated 25.1.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1314 of 2002. In the above view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate before this Court that the order impugned is illegal and had he been allowed to file objection, authorities might have reached to a different conclusion. It has also been informed on behalf of the 3 State that new Panchayat Elections have already been held in the year 2011 and the results have been declared and this order was passed five years back when the wife of the petitioner was elected as Member of Panchayat Samiti in the election held in 2006. The license was revoked till her tenure only. In above view of the matter and also due the fact that the life of impugned order was only till the tenure of the spouse of petitioner as member of Panchayat Samiti which already stands expired, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference therein. As a result this application fails, and is, accordingly, dismissed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)