IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1650 of 2007 ASHOK KUMAR PASWAN @ ASHOK PASWAN son of Shri Rameshwar Paswan, resident of village Kantnagar, P.S.Barari, District Katihar-----------------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary cum Commissioner, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.The District Magistrate, Katihar 3.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar, District Katihar------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :M/S Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Anupanand Jha,Advocates For the State :Mr.Ravi Kumar,A.C. to S.C.21 ---- 2. 16.3.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Katihar-cum-Licensing Authority by which the petitioner’s retail licence bearing No.12/97 issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Unification Order’, has been cancelled on the ground that the District Magistrate has rejected the recommendation of the Licensing Authority for revoking suspension of the petitioner’s licence. The facts of this case lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner had been granted the aforesaid licence in the year 1997. On 17.3.2006 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by which the licence of the 2 petitioner was suspended and he was directed to file his show cause along with the related stock distribution register, etc. as per the recommendation of the Block Supply Officer. The petitioner filed his show cause on 25.9.2006 along with the relevant documents. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 25.9.2006 came to the conclusion that the complaint against the petitioner did not appear to be justified and accepting the show cause and further finding that more than 90 days have passed as per the provisions of Clause 11 of the Unification Order, recommended to the Collector to release the licence of the petitioner from suspension and sent the records to the District Magistrate through the District Supply Officer. Thereafter on 27.10.2006 the file was returned by the District Supply Officer stating that the District Magistrate by his order dated 26.10.2006 had rejected the proposal for releasing from suspension. After referring to the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar cancelled the licence No.12/97 of the petitioner. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power to grant or suspend a licence has been vested by the Unification Order in the Sub-Divisional Officer. The power to suspend or cancel the same has also been vested in him under Clause 11 of the Unification Order. It is urged that there is no provision in the said Order for the Sub- Divisional Officer to recommend the revocation of suspension to the District Magistrate and act in the matter upon the orders of the District Magistrate. In fact, it is contended by learned counsel that under Clause 28 of the Unification Order the Collector is the appellate authority with respect to an order of suspension or cancellation of licence passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is, thus, submitted that the action of the authorities is illegal as the order has been passed by the statutory authority without applying his own independent mind acting on the direction of the superior authorities which is not permissible under the law. Secondly, by the said action the petitioner has also been deprived of the right to file an appeal under Clause 28 of the 4 Unification Order, as adverse view of the appellate authority is already known. Learned counsel for the State is unable to point out any provision in the Unification Order under which directions could have been sought from or issued by the District Magistrate with respect to revocation of suspension of the licence of the petitioner. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 22.11.2006 cannot stand. As early as in the year 1952 itself a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji : AIR 1952 SC 16, has held that where a statute grants power to an authority to pass certain orders, it must exercise the same itself without being influenced by any other or higher authorities in such matters. The impugned order, thus, suffers from vice of the statutory authority having acted on the direction of a superior authority. In the present case the situation has become much worse not only violating the statutory right but also the spirit of the 5 Unification Order as a result of which the petitioner has been effectively deprived of his right to challenge the order of cancellation before the appellate authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar-cum-Licensing Authority is quashed. In view of the fact that the Sub- Divisional Officer has already held that the allegations made against the petitioner are not justified, the licence of the petitioner is directed to be restored and further consequential benefits shall follow. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed with the above directions. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/