IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1365 of 2008 Dharmendra Choudhary, son of Yogendra Choudhary, village Gaurha, PS Nanpur, Dist. Sitamarhi – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, through the dist. Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 2) The Supdt. Of Police, Sitamarhi. 3) The District Supply Officer, Sitamarhi. 4) TheS.D.O., Pupri, Sitamarhi. 5) The Block Supply Officer, Nanpur, Dist. Sitamarhi – Respondents. 3 4.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 18.8.2007 contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sitamarhi recommending suspension of the petitioner’s license under the public distribution system. The petitioner is also aggrieved by Annexure 8 by which his license has been suspended by the Subdivisional Officer, Pupri. The facts are that an FIR was instituted on 29.2.2006 alleging therein that the petitioner was transporting 42 bags of wheat to be sold in the black market. The allotment of the petitioner was cancelled on the basis of the aforesaid FIR and the petitioner was issued a show cause on 15.4.2006. The petitioner replied to the show cause on 17.4.2006 after which an enquiry was held by the Block Supply Officer, Nanpur which is contained in Annexure 5. Vide order, dated 13.9.2006 (Annexure 6) the stay to the allotment of food grains to the petitioner was vacated. Subsequently the Superintendent of Police has issued Annexure 7 for cancellation of the petitioner’s license. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once an enquiry has been held and it was found that the wheat seized 2 does not belong to the petitioner, it is not justified that the Superintendent of Police should recommend, without examining the facts, for cancellation of the petitioner’s license. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that once a charge sheet has been submitted and a prima facie allegation is made out against the petitioner, then it is quite obvious that the consequence will follow. It is, therefore, submitted that the order contained in Annexure 7 is completely justified. It is further submitted that the Subdivisional officer has subsequently suspended the license of the petitioner and under these circumstances there is no illegality in the orders impugned. Considering all the facts it would be appropriate for the petitioner to bring all these facts to the notice of the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi who is the competent authority to decide as to whether suspension of license is in accordance with law or not. The petitioner is given liberty to produce a copy of this order within one month and the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi will decide the issue afresh within four months thereafter. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)