IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4801 of 2006 ARZU BEGAM, WIFE OF MD. SARFAROZ AHMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHARYARI, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SHEIKHPURA:---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SHEIKHPURA. 3. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING AUTHORITY, SHEIKHPURA :--RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agarwal, Senior Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Shubash Singh, A.C. to A.A.G.-15. ===== 3. 14.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was granted P.D.S. Licence No. 13/2004 in December, 2004 which was also renewed in December, 2005, so submitted counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed questioning the order bearing Memo No. 38-17 dated 19.01.2006, Annexure-5, whereunder the Licensing Authority has cancelled the aforesaid licence of the petitioner on the ground that the same was issued ignoring the departmental instructions contained in Letter No. 3874 dated 03.12.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having obtained the licence petitioner conducted her agency to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority and the - 2 - administration, no complaint was ever made against her in regard to the distribution of the food grains made by her to the constituents attached to the shop. It is also submitted on her behalf that as petitioner did not violate any of the terms of the licence, the licence granted may be ignoring the instructions of the State Government contained in Letter No. 3874 dated 03.12.2003 ought not to have been cancelled as petitioner was not ever found to have violated any of the terms of the licence. In support of the aforesaid plea learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Md. Mumtaj and others Vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1999 (2) E.F.R. 746 and another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others Vs. Daulat Ram Gupta, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 98. 3. Counsel for the State, however, contended that licence was granted to the petitioner in December, 2004 ignoring the departmental letter no. 3874 dated - 3 - 03.12.2003 which was binding on the Licensing Authority in terms whereof the licence is required to be preceded by the recommendation of the Committee with approval from the State Government. Petitioner was allowed licence beyond the number of Fair Price Shops fixed for the area by the State Government and when such fact was noticed licence of the petitioner was cancelled under the impugned order. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that petitioner has served as Fair Price Shop dealer for about two years and she is not alleged to have misconducted herself while serving as Fair Price Shop dealer. She was granted licence beyond the number fixed by the State Government on account of the mistake of the authorities. As such, for the mistake of the authorities she should not be asked to suffer for all times to come. Accordingly, I direct the Licensing Authority to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of licence in the light of the relevant government instruction and if there is vacancy for grant of fresh Fair Price - 4 - Shop dealing licence, her case be considered for grant of licence, as early as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)