IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18461 of 2008 DEONATH PRASAD, SON OF RAM SURAT SAO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HATTA, P.S. CHAINPUR, DISTRICT KAIMUR(BHABHUA). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR, BHABHUA. 3. S.D.O., BHABHUA. ----------- 03. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.8.2008, Annexure-1 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabhua, whereunder his PDS licence No.32 of 2007 has been cancelled on four grounds, including the ground that he filed false affidavit for obtaining the said licence. He is also aggrieved by the appellate order dated 31.10.2008, Annexure-2, whereunder appeal filed against the order cancelling the PDS licence of the petitioner has been rejected by the Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua, the appellate authority. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that earlier his PDS licence was suspended and the suspension continued for three months, the licence ought not to have been cancelled. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 14.7.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 6977 of 2008. - 2 - 4. By filing counter affidavit counsel for the State has supported the impugned orders. In support of such stand he placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 15.7.2006, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, on the basis of which PDS licence No.32 of 2007 was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that PDS licence was issued in faovur of the petitioner on the premise that none of his family members are having such licence. In support of such fact petitioner filed affidavit dated 15.7.2006 declaring in paragraph-5 of the affidavit that none of his family member has PDS shop and relying on such statement in the affidavit, petitioner was allowed PDS licence No.32 of 2007. Later it transpired that son of petitioner also has a PDS shop and in appreciation of such fact the licence of the petitioner was initially suspended and after considering the cause shown by the petitioner his licence has finally been cancelled under the impugned order dated 19.8.2008, Annexure-1 holding that Santosh Kumar, son of the petitioner submitted his resignation as PDS dealer after filing of the affidavit by the petitioner on 15.7.2006 and the statement made by the petitioner in his affidavit dated 15.7.2006 is false. In this connection, it was also stated in paragraphs-1 and 2 of the impugned cancellation order that business premise - 3 - of the petitioner and his son Santosh Kumar is one and the same and they also reside together. The ground taken by the licensing officer to cancel the licence of the petitioner has also been found true by the Collector, the appellate authority, who found as a fact that Santosh Kumar having submitted his resignation as PDS dealer on 14.8.2006 proceeded to lift the grains under the Antyodaya Scheme on 10.9.2006. Even otherwise the affidavit filed by the petitioner is dated 15.7.2006, which is prior to the date of resignation submitted by his son Santosh Kumar in which incorrect statement has been made. 5. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the licensing authority has rightly proceeded to cancel the PDS licence of the petitioner, as he obtained such licence by making false statement. Order of the licensing officer having been affirmed by the appellate authority, I do not find any merit in the writ application, which is dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)