IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14552 of 2007 LAXMAN SINGH SON OF LATE DAMARI SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOSHDIHARA, P.S. NABINAGAR, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM THE LICENSING AUTHORITY, AURANGABAD. ----------- 3 25/03/2010 The petitioner claims himself to be the Public Distribution System dealer who had a license, namely, license No. 1/N/98 relating to Nabinagar Block in the district of Aurangabad. According to him there is no dispute that the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Verification) Order, 1984 provides for renewal of the said license. Under clause 6 he has to make a deposit of required fee for renewal for a year or three years for which renewal fee must be paid by 31st December of that year. If it is not deposited by that date, they are granted yet another opportunity to do so by 31st January of the subsequent year but with a late fine. Claim of the petitioner is that for renewal of his license he had handed over money to an Advocate Clerk who got the challan passed on 28.12.2002 and also deposited it with the State Bank at Aurangabad but it is also stated that for - 2 - some reason the Advocate Clerk had to rush to Varanasi, therefore, the actual deposit was made on 4th January, 2003. The challan was accepted and no infirmity was pointed out. The petitioner has continued to do his business. It is further his case that even for the year 2006-07 he has deposited the renewal fee which has been accepted by the Treasury. His deposits with regard to the subsequent years after 2003 is also stated in paragraph 8 of the writ application. Reason for his approaching the High Court is that now the respondents have refused to supply him goods under the Public Distribution Scheme. It seems that the P.D.S. License of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that late fee was not deposited along with the challan in the year 2002. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit and they have stated that the provision under the Control Order is very clear. There was failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the requisite license renewal fee within the prescribed time period which was 31st December, 2002. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to deposit the late fee since the deposit, as now admitted, was made on 4th January, 2003. It is the stand that because of such non - 3 - deposit, the licensing authority could not have taken cognizance of deposit of renewal fee and the license of the petitioner stood cancelled due to non deposit of renewal fee with fine. His submission that he has continued to deposit license fee for the subsequent years or that he has continued to do business is denied is of no avail. Counter affidavit with such assertion was served upon the petitioner way back on 24.2.2010. Time was granted by this Court in view of the above assertion of the State to file rejoinder on 10.03.2010 but no rejoinder has come to be filed on spacious plea that the petitioner is suffering from Tuberculosis and is not in a position to file affidavit. The contentions and the assertions of the petitioner in face of the statement made by the State cannot be accepted to reflect the true state of affair. It is not understood as to how the petitioner has carried on his business if his license was not renewed for the year 2003 due to non compliance of the statutory provisions. If there was failure on the part of the petitioner in the year 2002 to deposit the late fine he should have approached the licensing authority by filing an - 4 - application to consider depositing the same within a reasonable time frame or if there was refusal, he could have approached the High Court for an appropriate direction but for some reason or the other the petitioner chose to sleep over that right for so many years till his business was stopped and now the petitioner has approached the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner. In absence of un-explained conduct on the part of the petitioner and non renewal of the license due to non deposit of late fine, no direction can be issued in favour of the petitioner because the Court feels that the respondents have done no wrong in not taking cognizance of the deposit of license fee for renewal by the petitioner. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)