IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13718 of 2006 SHIV DEVI, W/O LATE BHOLA PRASAD YADAV, R/O VILLAGE-SHANKARPUR, P.O.-SHANKARPUR, BLOCK-SADAR MUNGER, DISTRICT-MUNGER. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COLLECTOR, MUNGER. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR, MUNGER, OFFICE OF THE SUB-DIVISINAL OFFICER, SADAR MUNGER SUPPLY BRANCH. ……………RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.13724 of 2006 JAIPRAKASH SAHU Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.13740 of 2006 BINDESHWARI PRASAD SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14076 of 2006 ARUN KUMR AZAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14112 of 2006 SANJAY KUMAR YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14129 of 2006 LAKHAN SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14130 of 2006 SHIV SHANKAR SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14131 of 2006 AMIMUL HAQUE Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.14168 of 2006 MANJU DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With 2 CWJC No.14901 of 2006 JAGDEO PD. YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.15412 of 2006 BASUDEO MANDAL @ BASUDEO PRASAD MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.15843 of 2006 HEMANT KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Adv. And Mr.Amod Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr.Bhashkar Shankar, AC to GP-XII and Mrs.Alka Verma, AC to AAG-IX. ------------ 2 14.07.2010 In all these writ applications a common prayer is to quash the impugned order of the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer by which he has cancelled the licences granted to the individual petitioners under the Bihar Trade Article (Licence Unification) Order 1984. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the writ applications the petitioners had preferred appeals before the Collector and the Collector, after hearing the parties, found some infirmities in the order and, therefore, he remitted back the matters to the Sub- 3 Divisional Officer for fresh consideration taking into account certain aspects pointed out in the order and take a sympathetic view and pass reasoned order. He submits that inspite of said orders of the Collector the said Sub-Divisional Officer has passed orders without considering the matters on merits in the light of the observations and orders of the Collector and has refused to take a sympathetic view in the matters in view of the writ applications pending in this Court. Therefore, he submits that the writ applications may be disposed of with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass fresh orders on merits in the light of the observations and findings of the Collector in his order at an early date. Learned counsels for the respondents do not object to this prayer of the petitioners. In the circumstances, these writ applications are disposed of with a direction to the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer to consider the matters afresh on merits in the light of the observations and findings of the Collector and pass speaking orders on merits 4 considering the directions of the Collector. At the time of fresh consideration on merits the parties will be given an opportunity to present their case and materials as they may choose. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in a similar matter this Court has already passed an order in CWJC No. 16113 of 2009. The petitioners will be well advised to bring the said order of this Court to the knowledge of the concerned Sub- Divisional Officer for consideration. Since the licences of the petitioners stand cancelled, it is expected that the Sub- Divisional Officer shall proceed in the matters expeditiously and pass final orders preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)