IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16407 of 2008 Dhaneshwar Prasad Singh, son of Late Chandrika Prasad Singh, village Gangaili, PS K. Nagar, Dist. Purnea – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3) Collector, Purnea. 4) Subdivisional Officer, Sadar, Purnea. 5) Chairman, Divisional Consumer Vigilance Committee, Purnea. 6) The Block Supply Officer Incharge, K. Nagar, Purnea – Respondents. 5 25.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 15.5.2007 contained in Annexure 3 by which his P.D.S. license has been cancelled. On perusal of annexure 3 it would appear that there are two allegations against the petitioner. The first allegation is that the petitioner had closed his shop without informing the concerned authority and left the village. The second allegation is that the petitioner had misbehaved with the Harijans and not distributed Kerosene oil to them for three months at a time. It is also alleged that the petitioner was selling kerosene oil at a higher rate. In reply to the show cause the petitioner has stated that his brother had met with a serious accident and, therefore, he had to leave the village to get his brother treated. In my opinion such an explanation given by the petitioner is reasonable and satisfactory. It is difficult for any one to foresee the future and file an application in advance if he or his family members suddenly fall sick or that he is required to attend certain urgent matters. Closing of the shop cannot be considered to 2 be an offence of such nature which would lead to cancellation of license. As far as the second allegation is concerned, the petitioner has denied the fact that he had sold kerosene oil at higher price, rather, he had submitted that he sold kerosene oil at the fixed rate. In order to support his contention the petitioner has filed affidavits of few consumers. The Subdivisional Officer without considering those affidavits or examining or taking written statements of persons who were aggrieved by the petitioner’s behavior, has cancelled his license which is not in accordance with law. If there is allegation against a particular dealer with respect to misbehaving with the consumers who receive food grains, kerosene oil etc., there must be some proof of the facts alleged before the authority can conclude that the allegations are true. Mere hurling of allegations without supporting evidence cannot form the basis for cancellation of the license. I accordingly quash the order contained in Annexure 3 and the order of the appellate authority, dated 22.2.2008 contained in Annexure 4. This court also quashes the revisional order, dated 9.7.2008 on the ground that there was no provision of filing a revision under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)