IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13969 of 2009 RAM BILAS YADAV, son of Late-Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of Village-Khairi P.S.-Guruwa, District-Gaya. ……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary, Food & Civil Supply Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4. The S.D.O., Sherghati, Gaya. …….Respondents. ----------- 03. 17.11.2009 Petitioner is a dealer of the Public Distribution System and as such has a licence granted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya. For certain dereliction an enquiry was conducted and his licence was suspended. The Licencing Authority then directed the Executive Magistrate, Sherghati to make a detail enquiry and submit a report on the allegations. The enquiries were made and on 01.04.2008 the Executive Magistrate submitted his report on each issue totally exonerating the petitioner. The Sub- Divisional Officer having received the report apparently with his recommendation favorable to the petitioner then forwarded the file to the District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Gaya disagreed with the report and directed the Sub- Divisional Officer to cancel the licence. Accordingly by Annexure-3, noticing the report of the Executive 2 Magistrate and its non acceptance by the District Magistrate cum Collector and noticing direction of the Collector to cancel the licence, the Sub-Divisional Officer by his memo No.-597 dated 06.09.2008 has cancelled the petitioner’s licence. Petitioner then in terms of Clause-28(1) of the Bihar Trade Articles Licenses Unification order, 1984 preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner which has since been held to be not maintainable on the ground of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and stated that the appeal lies to the petitioner and as such without preferring an appeal the petitioner did not have preferred revision. Petitioner has challenged all these proceedings. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view the writ petition must succeed. Firstly the Sub-Divisional Officer had initiated a proceeding and sought a report from the Executive Magistrate. The Executive Magistrate exonerated the petitioner which report was prima facie accepted by the Sub-Divisional Officer. I may point out that the Sub- Divisional Officer is the Licensing Authority who exercises independent quasi judicial power and that being so in such exercise he is not subordinate to the District Magistrate cum Collector who is merely an 3 Appellate Authority. Thus once Sub-Divisional Officer had accepted the report of the Magistrate it would virtually amount to exonerate the petitioner but then he chose to adjudicate his power to the District Magistrate cum Collector Gaya by referring the matter to him. It is the Collector, Gaya who is the Appellate Authority and being an Appellate Authority he can not issue directions to the Sub-Divisional Officer, the Licensing Authority. Notwithstanding the said position in law he issued direction to cancel the licence and it is under the dictates of the Collector licence has been cancelled. Law does not permit issuance of such directions as both are independent statutory authority operating in their own jurisdiction. Now we come to the question of proceeding before the Divisional Commissioner. That order again is misconceived in law. Once it was established that licence had been cancelled by orders of the Collector, Gaya then preferring an appeal before the Collector would be like preferring an appeal from seizure to seizure. The Collector had already formed an opinion and it was pursuant to his direction licence was cancelled. Appeal to him was a futile and meaningless exercise. Thus only remedy that was left to the petitioner was before the Divisional Commissioner who 4 ought to have entertained the application on merits rather than dismissed it on technicality. In view of the aforesaid facts and the position in law, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sherghati, Gaya dated 06.09.2008 as contained in Annexure-3 is set aside. Accordingly the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya also becomes non-est. The writ petition is thus allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)