IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.853 of 2009 Om Prakash Singh, son of Late Ram Baneza Singh, village Mathauli, PS Vijaypur, District Gopalganj – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) Dist. Magistrate, Gopalganj. (3) S.D.O. Gopalganj. (4) Dist. Supply Officer, Gopalganj. (5) B.D.O. Vijaypur Block, Dist. Begusarai. (6) Block Supply Officer, Vijaypur Block, Dist. Gopalganj – Respondents. 3 16.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 15.3.2008 passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Gopalganj, contained in Annexure 1 as well as the order, dated 17.12.2008 of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure 8. The petitioner was a P.D.S. dealer. On the date of inspection it was found that the petitioner’s shop was closed and that he had not supplied kerosene oil from December 2007 to February 2008 as a result of which his license was suspended and later cancelled. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He replied to the show cause. The Subdivisional Officer has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is basically responsible for not distributing the kerosene oil to 37 persons who were entitled to receive it. In the show cause the petitioner has taken a defence that it is because his brother-in-law had stood for election for the post of Mukhiya and there was some dispute between them, these allegations have been leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of the Subdivisional Officer, 2 moved before the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate while examining the petitioner’s case as well as the case of number of other persons came to the conclusion that the order of the Subdivisional Officer was correct. While considering the petitioner’s case the District Magistrate has considered that there are allegations against the petitioner that he had not put up the display board nor had he sold kerosene oil for the past three months. The petitioner had relied on the report, dated 25.3.2008 of the Block Development Officer which was rejected by the District Magistrate stating that it was obtained in suspicious circumstances. Counsel for the State submits that the Subdivisional Officer had already passed an order on 6.3.2008 and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to ask the Block Development Officer to make any further enquiry on 12.4.2008 and, therefore, the report, dated 25.5.2008 seems to be in suspicious circumstances. Apart from the submissions aforesaid, this court on perusal of the record finds that the Block Development Officer has neither refuted nor agreed with the findings of the Subdivisional Officer. What he has stated is that the petitioner may have faced the cancellation proceeding on account of the Mukhiya with whom the petitioner was not on good term. This court finds that this conclusion of the Block Development Officer is not based on any cogent material or enquiry. Whatever be the reason for this conclusion, I find no reason to intervene with the orders of the 3 District Magistrate and the Subdivisional Officer. This writ petition is, thus, dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)