IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16560 of 2007 VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA S/O BHAGWAN LAL GUPTA R/O MOHALLA WARD NO. 15 OLD, PS-SAMASTIPUR TOWN DISTT- SAMATIPUR----------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-CUM-ADMINISTRATOR OF BAZAR SAMITI, PANT BHAWAN PATNA,BIHAR 3. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE DY. COLLECTOR, DISTRICT GENERAL BRANCH,SAMASTIPUR 5. THE S.D.O. CUM SPECIAL OFFICER OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS MARKETS COMMITTEE, SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE SECY. BAZAR SAMITI,SAMASTIPUR 7. THE SUPERVISOR, BAZAR SAMITI SAMASTIPUR 8. ASHWINI KUMAR S/O SHAMBHUNATH GUPTA, R/O MOHALLA- POTHIAGACHHI WARD NO.19 OLD PS- SAMASTIPUR TOWN, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR-------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Marketing Board: Mr. Rajiv Roy and Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocates For the State: Mr. Sunil K.Karn,AC to AAG-6 ------------ 2 12.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The settlement of shop made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur vide order dated 10.9.2007 contained in annexure-3. The reason for cancellation of the said shop is that the petitioner is alleged to have sub let the shop in breach of the agreement in favour of one Ashwini Kumar, respondent no.8 in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel is that it is not a case of sub letting but the said private respondent was given the responsibility to look after the shop in question in view of long absence of the petitioner due to illness of his father which kept him away from the business. Other contention is that the cancellation is without any notice or show cause and thirdly that the Sub Divisional Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to pass such order. So far as the show cause notice is concerned there is - 2 - no contradiction on the issue. But as far sub letting is concerned, there are certain materials on record to show that sub letting was done at least for the period what has been claimed by private respondent in his application. As far the power of the Sub Divisional Officer which is under challenge is concerned, the same seems to be misplaced on the ground that after the repeal of the Act, Marketing Board is no longer in existence and all the assets and liabilities of erstwhile Board has vested in the State of Bihar. The concerned Sub Divisional Officers have been appointed as the nodal officers to regulate such property and market area falling in their respective jurisdiction. But irrespective what has been recorded in the earlier part of the order the respondents have brought on record an office order dated 26.3.2007 issued by the administrator of the erstwhile Board. In the said office order in clause 14 there is provision for filing a kind of appeal before the administrator on any dispute relating to allotment of shops etc. If the mechanism of the kind has been provided, let the petitioner approach the administrator within a month from today. The petitioner would also be well advised to implead respondent no.8 as a party to the case and the administrator is directed to decide the issue preferably within eight weeks after the hearing is concluded in the matter. This writ application is disposed of with the above liberty and direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)