IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.777 of 2009 1.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., Marketing Division (described as “IOC, MD”) in the cause title of the writ petition) having its Divisional Office at Barauni 2.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. General Manager’s Office (described as “IOC, GM office” in the writ petition), Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Patna … Respondents-Appellants Versus 1.KASHI RAM BANSIDHAR, wholesale dealer, through its Proprietor Narayan Prasad Sultania, resident of Marwari Tola, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai … Petitioner-Respondent 1st party 2.The State of Bihar 3.The Collector, Begusarai … Respondents-Respondents 2nd party ----------- 8/ 11.01.2011 Having heard Mr. K.D Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Indian Oil Corporation and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner, we are satisfied that the learned Single judge has rightly allowed the connected writ application, wherein, the solitary prayer of the writ-petitioner, a licensee under the Bihar Unification Control Order was for giving effect to the restoration of licence as also restoration of supply of Kerosene oil by the Indian Oil Corporation. It is not in doubt, that the respondent-writ petitioner was an old licensee whose licence was cancelled in the 2 year 2000 on certain grounds by the Govt. Authorities and such order of cancellation of licence despite being affirmed by the Appellate Authority did not stand test of scrutiny before this Court and the writ application questioning the cancellation of licence by the respondent-writ petitioner was allowed. The said order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ application also became final. Thus when the question arose with regard to restoration of licence and its benefits by way of resuming of supply, the appellant Corporation took a plea that as the respondent-writ petitioner had not been lifting supply for a period of more than three years and the new policy had envisaged automatic cessation of such dealers who were not lifting the stocks for a period of more than three years, the respondent-writ petitioner would also not be entitled for getting such restoration of supply of Kerosene oil. Learned Single Judge, in fact having gone into the aspects as noted above in the impugned order has held that such plea of Indian Oil Corporation was untenable both on facts or in law. 3 Mr. Chatterjee has only submitted that it was a policy of the corporation taken in public interest to check the malpractices of getting supply of oil/ Kerosene oil but then he could not satisfy us that in the present case in hand it was on account of any such malpractices that the respondent-writ petitioner had to suffer. As noted above when on certain allegations the licence of the respondent-writ petitioner was cancelled, the same was found to be incorrect and in fact set aside by this Court. The effect of restoration of the licence, therefore, has to be given full meaning and the Indian Oil Corporation cannot withhold the supply of Kerosene oil to the respondent-writ petitioner on the ground on non-lifting of stock for a period of three years. Thus for all reasons recorded above we find no error in the order of learned Single judge and therefore while affirming the same we dismiss this appeal. Ranjan (T. Meena Kumari,J) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J)