IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3881 of 2007 GULAM RABBANI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 24.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.C. to Govt. Advocate No. VI for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4.9.2006 ( Annexure-8 ) passed by the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, by which he has rejected the Miscellaneous Case ( Revision ) No. 18/2006-2007 and the order dated 28.1.2008 ( Annexure-6) passed by the Collector, Darbhanga in Licence ( Cancellation) Appeal Case No. 2 of 2004-05, by which the Collector has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner assailing the order contained in Memo No.936 dated 15.7.2002( Annexure-4) of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar Darbhanga, by which the petitioner’s licence no. 53/87, under the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification ) Order, 1984, has been cancelled. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding a licence for Public Distribution Shop being Licence No. 53/87. The petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Block Supply Officer, Keoti on 15.3.2002 in course of which it was found that 19.50 quintals of wheat ( B.P.L.) was not there and the stock register was also not shown and further that the B.P.L. wheat had been sold on 11.3.2002 in the black market. On the basis of the report of the Block Supply Officer, the Sub- divisional Officer by his order contained in Memo No.363 dated 18.3.2002 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner as to why his licence should not be cancelled and directed him 2 to produce up- to- date stock register and the distribution register of the previous two years. It is alleged that the petitioner did not file his show cause within the time granted and subsequently the reminder was also issued. Ultimately, a show cause was filed by the petitioner after much delay on 29.6.2002, but he did not produce the stock register and distribution register along with the same. In the said show cause notice, the petitioner took a plea of his prolonged illness for the delay in filing the same and also sought to rely upon the certificate issued by the Mukhiya. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the S.D.O held that the petitioner did not file his show cause reply in time and despite several reminders did not produce the stock register and distribution register either to the Inspecting Officer or before him along with his show cause and accordingly by his impugned order dated 15.7.2002 cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Against the same, the petitioner filed Licence ( Cancellation ) Appeal Case No.2 of 2004-05 before the Collector, Darbhanga, which was rejected on the same grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division being Misc.Case (Revision) No. 18 of 2006-07 and by the impugned order dated 4.9.2006, the revision application was rejected by him considering the fact that the petitioner could not produce any evidence along with his show cause reply which itself was filed after a great delay and did not produce the stock register and distribution register. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions of Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade 3 Articles ( licences Unification) Order, 1984, the licence of the petitioner could not have been suspended beyond the period of 90 days and since the impugned order was passed by the Sub- divisional Officer on 15.7.2002, the same being much after 90 days period, the order for cancellation of licence of the petitioner is bad in law. In support of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a learned single Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Punsraj Begawani and another.v. The State of Bihar and others: 1987 PLJR 1150. From a perusal of the aforesaid decision it does not appear that any such proposition, as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, was laid down in the said case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has probably been misled into arguing the said point on the basis of the head-notes to the said decision, which does not correctly reflect what has been actually decided by this Court. In the said decision, it has been held that the suspension of licence cannot be continued beyond the period of 90 days, but it is nowhere stated that the cancellation of licence after the expiry of 90 days from its suspension would be bad in law. In the present matter, the petitioner would be estopped from taking such a plea since he has himself not submitted the show cause as directed by the Sub- divisional Officer within the time granted by him by memo no.363 dated 18.3.2002, rather the same was filed after more than 90 days on 29.6.2002 even after reminders have been issued to him and it is not open to the petitioner to take such a plea in order to derive benefit from his own wrong. However, the issue before this Court is not with respect to continuation of suspension of licence beyond the period 4 of 90 days, rather its cancellation by the order passed by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that the grounds, on which the licence has been cancelled are non est or contrary to the provisions of law. In view of the aforesaid the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that there are good grounds for cancellation of licence of the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to produce evidence before the authority, who had to exercise his discretion under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and there is no occasion for this Court to look into the matter since the impugned orders themselves are neither perverse nor contrary to law nor against the materials available on the record. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)