IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11185 of 2010 PAPPU KUMAR YADAV, son of Chaman Lal Yadav, resident of village Navtoli P.S.Tarapur, District Munger, Agent of Tarapur Bus Stand, Tarapur, District Munger-----------------------------------------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Chairman-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Regional Transport Authority, Munger 3.The Joint Transport Commissioner, Regional Transport Authority, Munger, District Munger 4.The District Magistrate, Munger, District Munger 5.The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tarapur, District Munger 6.The Superintendent of Police, Munger, District Munger 7.The Zila Parishad, Munger through the District Development Commissioner- Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Munger 8.The Station Head Office, Tarapur Police Station, District Munger 9.Vinay Kr.Yadav s/o Ramashray yadav, resident of village Madhura, P.S.Tarapur District Munger----------------------------------------------------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate For the State :Mr.Mahesh Prasad, SC 8 Mr.A.Prasad, AC to SC 8 For Zila Parishad :Mr.S.D.Yadav, Advocate ---- 2. 21.7.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Vinay Yadav as party respondent No.9 in the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Zila Parishad. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 30.6.2010 passed by respondent No.2, the Chairman-cum- Divisional Commissioner, Regional Transport Authority, Munger by which he has cancelled the Vehicles Ticket Sales 2 Licence No. 01/2003-04 of the petitioner and further ancillary reliefs. The petitioner was the holder of an Agent licence for the sale of tickets for travel by public service vehicles issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Munger. The said licence was renewed after the expiry of three years. After the renewal a complaint was received from the newly added respondent No.9 Vinay Yadav, who had taken the settlement of collection of parking fee of Tarapur Bus Stand for the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 for Rs.14 lacs, alleging that the petitioner was collecting in forcible and illegal manner excess amount from the passengers with the aid of his criminal associates from the Tarapur Bus Stand and the said act of the petitioner and his criminal associates was creating law and order problem. On the basis of the complaint Misc.Case No.2 of 2010 was initiated by the Regional Transport Authority and the petitioner’s licence was cancelled by order dated 8.2.2010. The petitioner challenged the same by filing C.W.J.C.No.3933 of 2010 on the ground that there was violation of the principles of natural justice as the decision has been taken without supplying him the documents like the report of the Sub- 3 Divisional Officer and thus the matter has been decided on the basis of materials of which the petitioner had no notice. By the order dated 10.5.2010 this Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 8.2.2010 and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to make available all reports and documents to the petitioner and after granting opportunity of hearing to pass fresh order. After complying with the direction of this Court and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the other side, the impugned order dated 30.6.2010 has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 30.6.2010 is unreasonable as merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case the petitioner cannot be treated as a criminal and as such his licence cannot be cancelled. It is also contended by learned counsel that the complainant Vinay Yadav himself has a large number of criminal cases pending against him and thus on the basis of the complaint made by him the authorities should not have acted against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the cancellation order has not been passed 4 merely on the ground that two criminal cases are pending against the petitioner but it was also found on the basis of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tarapur that the petitioner was creating law and order problems at the Bus Stand with the aid of his muscle-men. It is also contended by learned counsel that the petitioner has obtained his renewal by getting a false report submitted by Sub-Inspector of the Police Station that he did not have any criminal antecedents which, according to learned counsel, is a serious matter. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the order of cancellation has been passed by the Regional Transport Authority after considering all aspects of the matter including the pendency of two criminal cases against him, in both of which he had been charge sheeted, as also the fact regarding suppression of his criminal history in the report received from the Police Station for which departmental proceedings had also been initiated against the concerned Police Officer. Further the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer as also the Deputy Development Commissioner, Munger and of the Superintendent of Police, Munger had also been taken into consideration. 5 Although cancellation of Agent’s licence would entail serious civil consequences for the petitioner but it is not the case that the same had been done without due application of mind by the concerned authority. The authority has acted on the basis of materials on the record and on a consideration of the same it cannot be said that the discretion has been exercised in a perverse manner or arbitrarily. In the aforesaid circumstances, no occasion arises to interfere with the said order. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/