IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15642 of 2005 Girjan Prasad son of Sita Ram Rai, resident of village-Gosain Tola, P.S.Akilpur Danapur, district Patna. Petitioner. Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Sub Divisional Officer-Cum-Supply Officer, Danapur, District- Patna 3.The Additional District Supply Officer, Danapur, District-Patna.- --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 30.11.2011. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel to SC-3 for the State. The writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.1.2004 issued under memo no.24 by the Sub Divisional Officer-cum Supply Officer, Danapur by which the retail dealership licence of the petitioner for running fair price shop under the Public Distribution System bearing Licence No.1621/89 has been cancelled on the ground that he has failed to deposit the renewal fee for the year 2001 alongwith fine. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the renewal fee for the year 2001 was not deposited but he attributes this negligence due to inadvertence, as according to him, he was under the bona fide impression, though mistaken, that he had deposited the fee 2 and thus there was no deliberate laches on his part. He submits that this inadvertence occurred due to the conduct of the respondents, in as much as, for the year 2002-03, the fee was accepted and he was allowed to continue. Suddenly, in the year 2004, the renewal has been refused on the ground of non-payment of the renewal fee for the year 2001. He submits that the respondents ought to have ordered for payment of renewal fee alongwith appropriate fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that even though there was fault on the part of the petitioner, but his action cannot be held to be deliberate. The non renewal of the licence also cannot be held to be totally unjustified but since the same has been done after accepting the renewal fee for the subsequent years, i.e. 2002- 03, suddenly, the authorities taking the plea of non deposition of the renewal fee for the year 2001 and passing order for cancellation, is also not totally justified and correct. By conduct there appears to be laches also on the part of the respondents. This defect ought to have been pointed out in January, 2002. 3 Considering the totality of the matter, this court deems it appropriate to quash the order dated 14.1.2004 by which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled. However, this order would not automatically mean the renewal of the licence of the petitioner. He may approach the concerned Licensing Authority alongwith a copy of this order within two months from today. Upon the petitioner approaching the concerned authorities, they shall be obliged to look into the matter and consider that if third parties are not operating in area, the petitioner deserves to be given a second chance. The petitioner shall thereafter be allowed to continue in accordance with law. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. ahk (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)