IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13585 of 2008 Shankar Rai, Son of Late Daroga Rai, Resident of Village Dariyapur, PO Haraji Block, P.S. Awtar Nagar, District Saran at Chapra. ----- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Food and Supply Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran at Chapra. 4. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra. 5. The District Supply Officer, Saran at Chapra. 6. The Sub-divisional Officer, Sonepur, District Saran at Chapra. 7. The Circle Officer, Circle Office Sonepur, District Saran at Chapra. 8. The Marketing Officer, Circle Office Sonepur, District Saran at Chapra. ----- Respondents. ----------- 3 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures 1, 2 and 3. Annexure-1 is the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sonepur by which the petitioner’s licence as a P.D.S. Dealer has been cancelled. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 19.8.2003. The revision was also dismissed in November, 2006. The grounds for cancellation is based on Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which indicates that the petitioner was not present in his shop on the date when the inspection was made and as such, his shop could not be inspected. The second allegation against the petitioner is that the display board was not placed outside the shop. It is also alleged that Khekhri Devi, Wife of Ram Kishun Sharma along with 20 others alleged that the petitioner sold K. Oil at very high rate. On perusal of the allegations against the petitioner, it would appear that the punishment by way of cancellation of the agreement/licence is not warranted in a case where a person is absent 2 for a day on account of some urgent work or as in the case of the petitioner due to health reasons. The fact that the inspecting team did not visit the shop of the petitioner on subsequent days indicates that they infact could not have verified the stock register etc. in the shop of the petitioner to conclude that the petitioner had sold the K.Oil at a higher rate as alleged. The inspecting team has recorded that Khekhri Devi along with 20 others had made a complaint against the petitioner. These persons have not given anything in writing and, therefore, just oral allegations made without any supportive documents cannot be accepted by this Court as a good ground for substantiating such allegations. In the result, I quash Annexures 1, 2, 3 and direct that the petitioner should apply for grant of a fresh licence along with a copy of this order. The petitioner’s application for grant of a fresh licence should be considered within a period of four months from the date of filing of the application. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)