IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8810 of 2005 SIDHNATH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 04.07.2008 It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s P.D.S. license was cancelled way back in the year 1993 and the order was affirmed in appeal, but, then the petitioner allowed the matter to the rest at that for the years together. Subsequently when he was acquitted in a case under Section 7 E.C. Act, he made out a ground for reviving his license and the authorities prima facie based on the recommendation allowed him to take steps in this regard. Later on a due verification of the records it emerged that the petitioner had not informed the authorities about the earlier cancellation of the license. This according to them was a vital suppression on his behalf, which led to some indulgence being granted to the petitioner. In absence of any explanation in this regard by the petitioner the authorities are correct in annulling their decision to renew the license of the petitioner based on his acquittal under Section 7 E.C. Act. There is no legal infirmity in either of the impugned orders. The writ application is dismissed. If the law or the rules allow the petitioner to claim a fresh license he can start a new life by approaching the authorities. Rajeev/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)