IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1500 of 2010 BANSHILAL YADAV S/O LATE SWAROOPLAL YADAV R/O VILL LAXMIPUR, DOHATHA, P.S GHANSHYAMPUR, DISTT- DARBHANGA. ….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BIROUL, DARBHANGA. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, GHANSHYAMPUR, DARBHANGA. …. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary, Advocate. For the State : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16. O R D E R 04/ 27.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition is being finally heard and disposed of at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the revisional, appellate and the original order of the authorities concerned by which the petitioner’s licence for fair price show had been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such measure has been taken only due to some delay in the filing of the renewal fee in the year 2003 and 2005. He submits that the renewal fee with late fine was to be deposited by 31.01.2003, but some delay occurred and the petitioner could file the said renewal fee with late fine on 31.03.2003. Thereafter, in the year 2004 he deposited renewal fee - 2 - within time. He further submits that renewal fees with fine in the year 2005 was to be deposited by 31.01.2005 which was extended by the authorities till 30.06.2005 and in the meantime the petitioner deposited the renewal fee with fine on 03.02.2005. In the said circumstances, there was no delay in the year 2005 also and only for two months delay in the year 2003, the petitioner’s licence has been cancelled although in Department Letter no. 10397 dated 11.09.1982, the Government has specifically directed that under the public distribution system the licence should not be cancelled for smaller technical grounds. He further states that in similar circumstances, the orders of cancellation of two other persons were set aside by the authorities concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Letter no. 3788 dated 05.09.2001 (Annexure-A) issued by Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Government of Bihar. The aforesaid letter specifically shows that in Clause IV of the said letter it was specifically stated that if licence renewal fee was not deposited by 31st December, it must be deposited by 15th or 31st of the next month, namely January, failing which the licence should be automatically cancelled. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that admittedly renewal fee was to be deposited by 31st of December and the last date fixed for deposit with fine was 15th or 31st January, but by that time the petitioner admittedly did not deposit the renewal fee with fine. Hence, according to clause IV of the aforesaid letter issued by the Department to all the authorities of - 3 - the State, after January, 31st , such licence would automatically stand cancelled. In the said circumstances, when the licence of the petitioner stood automatically cancelled on 1st of February, 2003, there was no occasion for renewal of licence either for 2003 or for any subsequent year, hence, deposit of renewal fees with fine by the petitioner either in March, 2003 and subsequently in 2004 and 2005 could not legally affect the cancellation of his licence which had already taken place earlier. It may be noted that limitation cannot be considered to be a small technical ground in the facts and circumstances of this case. 6. Furthermore, the authorities concerned, especially the revisional authority had considered the entire matter in detail, whereafter it had found that although sometimes fees for renewal of licence was deposited by the petitioner, but in spite of that since 1999, the petitioner had neither taken food-grains nor he had opened his shop. 7. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders of the authorities concerned, nor does it find any merit in this writ petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)