IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3269 of 2009 KAPILDEO SINGH, son of late Ramavtar Singh, resident of village – Telia Bandh, P S – Majhagarh, District – Gopalganj. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj. 4. District Supply Officer, Gopalganj. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Majhagarh, District – Gopalganj. ----------- 02. 18.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. From perusal of the appellate order passed in the case which Appeal No. 60 of 2008 it does emerge that the petitioner had submitted evidence both before the licensing authority and may be an additional material before the appellate authority but these materials have been brushed aside on the ground that the same ought to have been produced and presented before the licensing authority and there was no occasion for the appellate authority to take those materials into consideration. The question is whether the allegation agianst the petitioner is made out or not. If the petitioner has cogent evidence in his possession then the same ought to have been taken into consideration either by the licensing authority or the appellate authority to drive home the point whether the petitioner is guilty of the breaches alleged or not. The Court gets an impression that the authorities were more on a fault-finding mission rather than appreciating the issue based on material placed before them. The appellate order dated 22.12.2008 is set aside. Matter is - 2 - remanded back to the licensing authority with a direction that he shall examine all evidence furnished by the petitioner including one before the appellate authority and shall take a fresh decision preferably within a period of four months from today. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)