IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5259 of 2006 JAI MANGAL RAJAK, SON OF YUGAL RAJAK, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DHABAULI, P.S.- BEGUSARAI, MUFFASIL, DIST. BEGUSARAI :-- PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BEGUSARAI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. ===== 2. 17.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai contained in Memo No. 425 dated 29.12.2005, Annexure-5, whereunder he has refused to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealing Licence of the petitioner on instructions from the District Magistrate. In this connection it is pointed out that shop premises of the petitioner was inspected by the authorities on 22.12.1992 and discrepancies were found in the Stock, Issue Register. 3 quintals of sugar and 10 litres of kerosene oil was seized from the premises and case registered for the offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). For confiscation of the seized articles proceeding was also initiated by the District Magistrate and the articles were confiscated by the District Magistrate under order dated 19.09.2000. After seizure of the articles initially the licence of the - 2 - petitioner was suspended and thereafter cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer under order bearing Memo No. 641 dated 30.10.2000 in compliance of the orders of the District Magistrate, Begusarai contained in Memo No. 1869 Misc. dated 30.09.2000. Later, petitioner was exonerated in the criminal case under judgment dated 4th June, 2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai in G.R.Case No. 3082 of 1992/Trial No. 952 of 2003 photo copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. Against the confiscation order dated 19.09.2000 passed in Confiscation Case No. 28 of 1993 confiscating three quintals of sugar and 10 litres of kerosene oil passed by the District Magistrate, Begusarai petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2000 which was also allowed setting aside the confiscation order under judgment dated 22nd December, 2004, Annexure-2. After securing the acquittal in the criminal case and reversal of the confiscation order petitioner requested the Licensing Authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai to restore his Fair Price Shop Dealing Licence No. 7/91 under his representation dated 2.1.2005, Annexure-3 in the light whereof instructions were sought from the District Supply Officer, Begusarai under Letter No. 203 dated 30.6.2005, Annexure-4 asking him to obtain appropriate orders from the District Magistrate. 3. It appears, District Magistrate without - 3 - appreciating the fact that petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case as also the fact that order confiscating the seized articles has been reversed directed that it is not necessary to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealing Licence of the petitioner, whereafter the impugned order dated 29.12.2005, Annexure-5 has been communicated to the petitioner by the Sub- Divisional Officer. 4. Counsel for the State supported the aforesaid order dated 29.12.2005, Annexure-5. He states that perusal of the judgment passed in the trial taken against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 of the Act would indicate that petitioner has been exonerated on the ground of lack of evidence and submitted that during the inspection of the shop of the petitioner on 22.12.1992 irregularities were found in the Stock, Issue Register leading to seizure of three quintals of sugar and 10 litres of kerosene oil and in the light of such fact this Court should not direct for restoration of the Fair Price Shop Dealing Licence of the petitioner. 5. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission in view of the fact that the irregularities in the Stock/Issue Register was required to have been established before the trial court during the hearing of the trial before the judgment dated 4th June, 2003, Annexure-1 was passed. The prosecution having failed to produce the evidence supporting the fact that - 4 - petitioner had committed irregularities in the stock, I am not inclined to rely on the submission made by the counsel for the State, accordingly, direct the Licensing Authority to restore the Fair Price Shop Dealing Licence of the petitioner in the light of the findings of the trial court in the trial taken against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Act as also the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge in the confiscation matter vide judgment, Annexure-3, as early as possible in any case within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)