IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18542 of 2008 Bishwanath Sah, Ranjeet Kumar son of Late Bishwanath Sah, resident of Mohalla Bhagwan Bazar, Panch Mandir, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, District Saran at Chapra………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Saran, District Saran at Chapra. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Chapra, District Saran at Chapra………………………………… Respondents. ----------- 03/ 03.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 19.09.2008 (Annexure-1) by which the Collector, Saran (respondent no.2) dismissed Supply Appeal Case No.11 of 2008 which was filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure-4) of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra (respondent no.3) cancelling petitioner’s Licence No.07/84 for Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said authorities decided the matter merely on the report of the vigilance authority without applying their independent mind which was the requirement of law. In this regard, he relies upon a decision of a Bench of this court in case of Nawin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2006(4) P.L.J.R. 429. Leaned counsel for the petitioner further submits that neither the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. nor any charge sheet was submitted 2 against him and hence an enquiry should have been done but the authorities failed to hold enquiry in the matter and decided the case. 4. From the facts and circumstances of this case as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Chapra passed his impugned order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure-4) after notice to the petitioner and also after hearing him and himself enquired into the matter in detail. It is also apparent form the said order that the said authority has applied its independent mind and has decided the case after coming to the specific conclusion on the basis of materials available on record which clearly proved that the petitioner had violated the terms of licence as well as the settled principles of law. 5. In the said circumstances the aforesaid case law relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The appellate authority in its impugned order dated 19.09.2008 (Annexure-1) has also considered the matter in detail independently and has passed the same in accordance with law. 6. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )