IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11628 of 2007 MOTI LAL GUPTA, S/o Shri Raja Ram Sah, Resident of Mirchai Patti, Kaparaul Road, P.O, P.S. & Town & District- Sitamarhi. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Sitamarhi, 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, Sitamarhi. . . . . . Respondents. ------------ 3/ 04.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner initially challenged the order of suspension dated 18.07.2006 of the License under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification), Order, 1984. He has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 2062 of 2008 for amendment in the relief portion extending it to quash the order of cancellation of licence dated 15.03.2008. The petitioner submits that the enquiring officer found the allegations substantiated and as such the licensing authority the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sitarmarhi, referred the matter to the District Selection Committee for cancellation of the licence. The District Selection Committee, which is headed by the Collector of the District, found the allegations substantiated and recommended for cancellation of the licence. He further submits that the licensing authority cancelled the licence, in view of the decision of the District Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he did not apply independent mind to the entire facts. He further submits that as the impugned order has been passed in view of the decision of the Selection Committee, headed by the Collector and appeal to him under Section 28 would not be very effective. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a - 2 - decision in the case of Nawin Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2006(4) PLJR 429. Learned counsel for the State submits that the District Selection Committee comprises not only the District Magistrate but other members, as such it cannot be said that the impugned order has been passed at the dictate of District Magistrate. The impugned order by the Licensing Authority has been passed in the light of the direction of the District Selection Committee. In this view of the matter, I remit the case to the Licensing authority to pass an order afresh after exercising his own discretion to the merits of the case. The Licensing Authority is not precluded from looking into the report of the District Selection Committee, but he must take his own independent decision after referring to the pros and cons of the case. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 15.03.2008 is set aside with a direction to the Licensing Authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)