IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5921 of 2007 SHAMBHU PANJIYAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr.Advocate M/s Vijay Anand, D.N. Tiwari, T.Sharma 4 26.11.2009 The petitioner, who is a P.D.S. dealer, seeks quashing of the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by the S.D.O., Benipatti in Appeal No.10/2006-07 affirming the order of cancellation. The licensing authority, Benipatti by order dated 6.12.2005 bearing memo no. 577 suspended the licence of the petitioner and issued show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled. The allegation was based on inspection made on 2.12.2005 at 4 P.M. It was alleged that the shop was closed at the relevant time and certain customers alleged that some of the items are being supplied at a higher rate and not in time. Pursuant to the show cause notice dated 6.12.2005 the petitioner filed his reply. Thereafter the licensing authority passed the impugned order canceling the licence on 19.8.2006. The petitioner preferred an appeal which too was dismissed by order dated 29.1.2007. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on various grounds. He states that the P.D.S. shop remains open up to 4 P.M. and it is admitted in the inspection report that the same was inspected at 4 P.M. itself. He further states that the impugned order canceling the licence has been passed at the behest of the District Magistrate, Madhubani who headed the District Level Selection Committee. He further submits that the licensing authority ought to have acted on his own. Thus, he submits that 2 KHAN the appeal preferred by him before the District Magistrate, Madhubani bearing Appeal No.10 of 2006-07 was mere a formality as the Appellate authority judged the whole issue from prejudiced mind. Counsel for the State submits that in course of inspection customers have complained of charging higher rate for the different items. He further submits that notwithstanding the report of the District Level Selection Committee, the licensing authority has applied his own mind. After having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the petitioner should prefer a revision before the learned Commissioner who will decide the issue after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In case the petitioner files a revision before the learned Commissioner, he would dispose of the same preferably within six months from the date of its filing. He will also sympathetically consider the application for condonation the delay as the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court. It would be open to the petitioner to raise all points before the revisional authority. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. (S.P.Singh,J)