IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7311 of 2005 NAND KISHORE SAH, SON OF LATE NAGESHWAR SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-KANTI, P.S.-KANTI, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR. ……. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSION TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFRARPUR. 3. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFARPUR. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANTI MUZAFFARPUR. …. RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with M/s Sanjeev Mishra & Vijay Anand, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Syed Arshad Alam, S.C.-III with Mr. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Asst. Counsel to S.C. –III --------- 06/ 16.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 10.01.2003 (Annexure-1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.4) cancelling the licence of the petitioner for P.D.S. dealer bearing licence no.14 of 1996 issued to him under Bihar Trade Articles Licences (Unification) Order, 1984 and also the appellate order dated 28.04.2003 (Annexure-2) by which the Collector, Muzaffarpur rejected P.D.S. Appeal No.4/2002-03 and also challenging order dated 11.05.2005 (Annexure-3) by which the Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.2) rejected Revision No.22 (P.D.S/03-04) which was filed by the petitioner. 3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties - 2 - as well as from the materials on record it is quite apparent that the petitioner’s shop was inspected by the Supply Inspector on 24.09.2002 and several irregularities and illegalities were found and the seizure list was also prepared, whereafter the show cause notice was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, West, Muzaffarpur and finally after considering the matter in detail, the impugned order was passed which was affirmed by the appellate as well as by the revisional authorities provided in law. The said authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner who was a P.D.S. dealer infringed the conditions 3(a), 4, 5 & 6 of the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner by not displaying the stock and price of the commodities on notice board, not maintaining the distribution register of Kerosene oil and not accounting for the distribution of 7260 liters of Kerosene oil which was not denied by the petitioner. 4. So far the claim of the petitioner that distribution of kerosene oil has not been verified by the consumers and members of the vigilance committee of the Public Distribution System. The display stock & price of items in shop and proper maintenance of stock & distribution registers are mandatory for the P.D.S. dealer and non-compliance of the same has to be dealt with severely. The said finding has been concurrently found by all the three authorities as provided in law. The points raised by the petitioner are purely questions of facts which have been considered by the authorities properly in detail. 5. Hence, this court does not find any illegality in the - 3 - said orders, nor there is any violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner has been properly noticed and this court does not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)