IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4241 of 2007 BIMLA DEVI, wife of Akhileshwar Kumar Singh, resident of village- Bhagwanpur Chatti, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur. . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, East Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. 4. The Block Supply Officer, Mushahari, District Muzaffarpur. . . . . . Respondents. For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Singh, : Mr. Pankaj Kr. Singh, Advocates For the State : JC to AAG VI ----------- 3/ 11.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is a retail P.D.S. dealer. She has assailed the order dated 18.04.2006 as contained in Annexure-3, whereby agreement of his P.D.S. licence has been cancelled. She has also challenged the order dated 27.05.2006 as contained in Annexure-4 whereby his licence bearing no. 01/1997 has been cancelled. The petitioner states that order dated 18.04.2006 cancelling the agreement is bad in law as the said order has been passed without giving any show-cause. She submits that the cancellation of agreement envisages civil consequences, as such, even cancellation of agreement would require issuance of show-cause. She has also assailed the order dated 27.05.2006, canceling the licence, on the ground that the show cause submitted by the petitioner has not duly been addressed. She further submits that admittedly the day on which the shop was inspected, was a closing day. She submits that it is not a case that distribution register or stock register was not available in the shop. Learned counsel for the State submits that the licence has been cancelled after giving show-cause. - 2 - After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should raise her point before the Collector. In case, such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority would also consider the points noticed above. The learned appellate authority would also sympathetically consider the appeal, so filed and would dispose of the same preferably within six months from the date of its receipt after condoning the delay as she was pursuing her remedy before this Court since, 2006. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)