IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10213 of 2006 Shafi Ahmad, son of Abdul Rashid, resident of Hargonwa, P.S. Manpur, P.O. Biharsharif, District Nalanda …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Nalanda 3. The S.D.O., Biharsharif, Nalanda For the Petitioner : M/s D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate & S.R.Sinha, Advocate For the State : M/s Rajiv Kr. Singh, G.P. 15 and Sanjeev Kr. Singh, AC to GP 15 6 08.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner challenges the order dated 2.6.2006 as contained in Annexure 1 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif, whereby his license granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 to run a shop under Public Distribution System has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order seems to have been passed on the basis of a verification/inspection report as contained in letter No. 103/Confidential dated 28.2.2006 of Cabinet (Vigilance) Department as well as letter no. 571/Aa 2 dated 13.5.2006. The aforesaid letter no. 103/Confidential dated 28.2.2006 has been brought on record as Annexure 2. Learned counsel draws attention of this Court that even the name of the petitioner does not figure in the list attached with the aforesaid letter against whom there are allegations of committing irregularities. By earlier order dated 29.6.2011, upon the prayer of the learned counsel for the State, time was granted to seek instruction and file supplementary counter affidavit appending therewith the necessary inspection report which would show that some irregularities have been found at the time of verification/inspection by the authorities concerned against the petitioner. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed, however, the report annexed appears to be of the year 2003. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner in that report also though there is a general allegation against all the dealers of Hargawadih Panchayat. However, even that report does not appear to have been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Biharsharif while passing the 3 impugned order. The subsequent letter dated 28.2.2006 of the Vigilance Bureau (Annexure 2) shows names of certain persons against whom there are allegations of irregularities but the name of petitioner does not figure there. In above view of the matter, it appears that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. As a result, the order dated 2.6.2006 as contained in Annexure 1 is quashed and set aside. It is, however, made clear that if some allegation is found against the petitioner, it will be open to the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh proceeding in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)