IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1289 of 2009 Sazzad Ansari, Son of Late Nemzzuddin Ansari, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari. 5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents. with CWJC No.1291 of 2009 Sayed Shakil Mehadi, Son of Sayed Mumtaz Mehadi, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari. 5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents with CWJC No.1296 of 2009 Bashila Khatoon, Wife of Late Sannadan Khan, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ------ Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari. 5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents. with CWJC No.1428 of 2009 Shiv Ram, Son of Late Gokul Ram, Resident of Mohalla Baluatal, PO Motihari, PS Motihari Town, District East Champaran. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari. 5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents. ----------- 5 4.11.2011 The order impugned contained in Annexure-4 is common to all these four writ applications. By the impugned order, the Sub- divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari, has 2 cancelled the ‘Thela’ licence of the petitioners on the ground that they did not deposit their renewal fee within time. The same order was challenged in another writ application by one Rakesh Kumar vide CWJC No. 18691 of 2008. This Court while considering the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari has quashed the order on the ground that although there was an order in the file, directing the petitioners to deposit the renewal fee, no notice was ever issued to the ‘Thela’ vendors so that they could deposit the renewal fee within the time stipulated. After coming to this finding, this Court quashed the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari. These four writ applications will be covered by the decision in CWJC No. 18691 of 2008. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)