IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.308 of 2007 JAI KRISHNA RAI ,VILLAGE DHANAUN POST OFFICE DHANOUN POLICE STATION PATORI, UNDER PATORY BLOCK, SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SAMASTIPUR 5. SUPPLY INSPECTOR, PATORY, SAMASTIPUR. ----------- 3 04.07.2011. The petitioner has challenged order dated 14.8.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga in Misc case no. 31 of 1993-94 by which he dismissed the revision application preferred against the order of the Collector, passed in appeal affirming the order of the Sub Divisional Officer Samastipur cancelling the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that it would appear from the notings in the file that the Licencing officer has acted on the recommendation of other officials. He submits that the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is also a non-speaking order. The statutory authority has to apply its own independent mind to the facts of the case. He does not have to act at the behest of his superior or on recommendations. The petitioner relied upon a decision in case of Bishwanath Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 1988 Bihar Revenue Labour Journal. Counsel for the State submits that order in question shows due application of mind by the licencing authority. 2 I have perused the order of the licencing authority, appellate authority and the Revisional authority. The order culminating into rejection of the P.D.S. licence does not show that it has been passed at behest of other officials. The order was challenged in appeal and thereafter in revision. Both the appellate court and the revisional court noticed that the Supply Inspector inspected the establishment on 9.12.1989 and found the shop closed. The explanation tendered by petitioner was not found satisfactory. The two courts also found that the display board did not reveal the stock and quantity. Thus all the three authorities found that there were adequate ground for canceling licence. It would be open for petitioner to apply afresh for licence. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is disposed of. Shashi ( S.P. Singh, J.)