IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7342 of 2006 Rameshwar Sah, son of Late Santokhi Sah, residence of village: Lakhai, Police Station: Barhat, District Jamui … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui 3. The Sub. Divisional Officer, Jamui 4. The District Supply Officer, Jamui 5. The Block Supply Officer, Laxmipur Block, District Jamui 6. Kapildev Singh, son of Jugal Kishore Singh, resident of Ratanpur, Police Station: Giddhaur, District Jamu … . Respondents ----------- 02/ 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, who states that he has filed counter affidavit in the matter on 11.4.2011, but the same has not yet been appended with the record, as such, this order disposing of the writ petition is being passed without the benefit of the averments made therein placing reliance on the statement made in the impugned order itself. 2. Petitioner is a PDS licensee bearing No. 208/85, which is evident from the impugned order, bearing Memo No. 508 dated 25.7.2005, Annexure-6. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order, whereunder on the failure of the petitioner to deposit licence renewal fee within the 2 required time i.e. 31.1.2004, aforesaid PDS licence of the petitioner has been directed to be cancelled with further direction to cancel his allotment of foodgrain. 3. From perusal of the impugned order dated 25.7.2005, Annexure-6 itself, it appears that the licence renewal fee is required to be deposited by 31.1.2004, but the petitioner deposited the same on 28.2.2004 and taking into account such default, his licence has been directed to be cancelled. 4. For failure of the petitioner to deposit licence renewal fee within time i.e. 31.1.2004, the Licensing Authority could have levied fine, but in my opinion, should not have cancelled the licence on account of delay in deposit of the licence renewal fee. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order, bearing Memo No. 508 dated 25.7.2005, Annexure-6 is set aside with direction to the Licensing Authority to levy fine, if permissible under law and thereafter to renew licence of the petitioner, provided petitioner has not indulged in any other misconduct. 6. Appropriate orders in this regard be passed by the Licensing Authority as early as possible 3 in any case within two months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Licensing Authority. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)