IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5799 of 1994 Sagar Sahani, Son of Late Teli Sahani, resident of Mohalla East Lohanipur Jhugi Jhopari, Near Rajendra Nagar Gumati, P.S. – Kadamkuan, Town and District – Patna. ----------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 3. Collector, Patna. 4. Special Officer, Rationing, Patna. 5. Marketing Officer, Rationing, Patna. Area – III. --------- Respondents. ------------------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Prem Nath Singh, Advocate For the Sate : Mr. Ravindra Kr. Priyadarshi, J.C to AAG - III ------------------ 11 11.11.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner had a Kerosene Oil Thela Vendor bearing License No. 44 of 1985. All had been well with him till in the year 1992, certain complaints were made against the petitioner that he was not selling the allotted kerosene oil to the consumers at the assigned place but was selling the kerosene oil in black market. Inquiry was held in this regard and on the date in question petitioner was not found to have sold kerosene oil on the place assigned. An explanation was offered by him that since the railway crossing at Bahadurpur was closed he did not reach the place on time and in the meanwhile people surrounded him and he was made to sale the kerosene oil at the Prithviraj Chouraha itself. The explanation offered by the petitioner was not accepted by the Licensing Authority. It was in - 2 - this background that vide Annexure – 2 dated 21.05.1992, the license of the petitioner was cancelled. Effort made by the petitioner to be get relief both in appeal and revisional jurisdiction but both authorities did not find any merit in the case of petitioner. It is in this background that the present writ application has not been filed challenging the impugned orders contained in Annexure – 2, 3 & 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite a concurrent finding by all the three authorities against the petitioner in this regard, he has one primary submission to make which is that in similar kind of circumstance and allegation, the then Collector in one of the cases as would be evident from perusal of Annexure – 5 had taken a lenient view of the matter and had allowed the appeal, keeping the economic and human dimension of the problem which might be- fall the licensee. The case of the petitioner ought to have been treated with some compassion and consideration. It is further contended that for a default of the kind as alleged against the petitioner where a quantity of 200 litres of kerosene oil was involved, the punishment in question was harsh & excessive, more so, when the license has remained cancelled since the year 1992. He has also brought some order of the High Court to show that a lenient view ought to be taken as the petitioner has been punished enough for the indiscretion on his part. It is a fact that there are concurrent findings with - 3 - regard to allegation made against the petitioner, but keeping in mind that the petitioner was a Thela Vendor and was not a wholesaler and the punishment of cancellation of his license has remained operational for more than 1 ½ decades, it is sufficient punishment to him. Not only this, since the appellate authority had taken a lenient view in similar circumstance and restored the license in question, the petitioner deserves similar kind of treatment. The writ application is allowed with a hope by the Court that the petitioner would now not venture into any activity which may prove to be detrimental to him in future. The writ application is allowed and orders contained in Annexure – 2, 3 & 4 are hereby quashed. There will be no order however as to cost. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)