IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15115 of 2008 MOHAMMAD ILLIAS S/O SHEIKH ZAHEER R/O VILLAGE- BELDARI, P.O. BARWAT PARSARAIN, P.S. BETTIAH MUFASSIL, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, AT MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SADAR), BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN. ………………..RESPONDENTS. Counsel for the petitioner : Amarendra Nath Verma (Advocate) Counsel for the State : Manoj Kumar Jha (A.C. to G.A.-I) --------------- 3 09-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah by which the petitioner’s fair price shop license No. 2 of 1991 under the Public Distribution System for Barwat Parsarain Panchayat was cancelled. The appellate order of the Collector and the revisional order of the Commissioner are also under challenge. 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid retail license was for lifting food grain and other articles for distributing the same to the people of the area especially the red card holders in accordance with the terms and conditions of his license under the Bihar Trade Articles 2 Act, 1984. 4. It transpires that several allegations were received where after the Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah (Respondent No. 4) considered the matter and gave opportunity to the petitioner to file his show cause where after he passed order dated 10-06-2006 (Annexure-5) rejecting the license of the petitioner. It transpires that against the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner filed appeal case No. 2 of 2006-07 which was dismissed by Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah (Respondent No. 3) vide his order dated 28-03- 2007(Annexure-7), whereafter the petitioner filed revision Case No. 107 of 2007 against the aforesaid orders which was also dismissed by the Commissioner (Respondent No. 2) vide his order dated 5-8-2008 (Annexure-8). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer, Bettiah had passed orders of cancellation of license against 16 persons out of whom some persons challenged it before the higher authorities and the order of cancellation of their licence were set aside either by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority or even by this Court. He further submits that the order of the Sub Divisional officer suffers from non consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner and the said order was passed merely in 3 compliance of the directions of the Secretary of the Urban Development Food and Civil Supplies. 6. It may be noted in this connection that on the same date several orders can be passed by the authorities concerned but the merit of all the cases may not necessarily be the same in all the cases. In the said circumstances this case cannot be allowed only because in some other cases the order of the Sub Divisional Officer has been reversed. 7. So far the question of non consideration of the show cause filed by the petitioner is concerned. It is quite apparent that the Sub Divisional Officer passed his order one day after the show cause was filed by the petitioner and hence it cannot be legally said that he had not considered the said show cause. This point will also not be applicable as the points taken by the petitioners in the show cause has been fully considered by the Higher Authorities namely the Collector and the Commissioner, whereafter it was specifically found by the Commissioner that the impugned order of the Sub Divisional Officer was based upon the report of Vigilance Department and he had conducted the proceedings rightly and had passed order after considering the show cause of the petitioner. 8. It was also found that the Vigilance Report was based on the Inspection made at the petitioner’s 4 shop in which bunglings of food grain at large by the petitioner was found and the articles allotted to him for distribution to the red card holders were not distributed rather they were diverted by the petitioner which was clear violation of the conditions and regulations provided under the Bihar Trade Articles (License unification) order, 1984. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the Court below nor does it find any merit in this case. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. S.P. (S. N. Hussain, J.)