IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4477 of 2009 M/S Kashi Ram Banshidhar, Wholesale kerosene oil dealer through its Proprietor Narayan Prasad Sultania, Resident of Marwari Tola, P.S. Begusarai, District-Begusarai. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Begusarai. 3. Divisional Manager, I.O.C. Marketing Division, Opp. Gate No. 1, Barauni. 4. I.O.C., G.M. Office, Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Patna -Respondents. ----------- Counsels for Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Saket Tiwari, Adv. Counsels for IOC : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Adv. ------------ 03 20.05.2009 M/s Kashi Ram Banshidhar was a partnership firm of very long standing. It had a wholesale licence originally granted under the Bihar Kerosene Oil Dealer Licensing Order and family members were the partners. It was appointed a dealer for kerosene oil by the Indian Oil Corporation and the dealership at Begusarai. It may be mentioned here that by passage of time different members of the family died or retired from the firm and different members of the family stepped in but the firm continued to be the dealer and the licensee. It appears that pursuant to certain allegations the Collector, Begusarai, who is the Licensing Authority, cancelled kerosene oil licence of the petitioner firm. Petitioner appealed to the Commissioner, Munger Division, which appeal was also dismissed by order dated 23.12.2004. Petitioner then filed a writ petition before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 4578 of 2005, challenging the order of the Collector and the Commissioner. This Court by order dated 26.03.2007 2 set aside the order of the Collector and the Commissioner and issued a direction for restoring the wholesale licence of the petitioner firm. When the petitioner’s supply was not restored, petitioner has filed this writ petition. State has filed a counter affidavit. In which, it is stated that in pursuant to orders of this Court the licence has been restored. After restoration of licence the District Authorities, Begusarai informed Indian Oil Corporation through its Divisional Manager, Begusarai vide letter no. 215 dated 02.05.2007 about the restoration. It is stated that licence now stands in the firm name with proprietor Sri Narayan Prasad Sultania, one of the sons of Purshottam Lal Sultania. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that there being family partition after the death of Purshottam Lal Sultania, this business has been allotted to other son Shiv Kuamr Sultania and all applications have already been filed to the Indian Oil Corporation in this regards. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation submits that in view of the new guidelines issued by Ministry of Petroleum the unit had remained inoperative could not be revived after three years, as such, IOC is within its right not to resume supply. Having heard the parties and with their consent the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, there is only one impediment in petitioner getting the relief to the objection by the IOC, as noted above. In my 3 view, the objection is misconceived. The unit did not remain inoperative on its own. By statutory power the unit was stopped from working. The exercise of the statutory power was found to be wrong by this Court. Those orders of statutory authority were set aside by this Court. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner voluntary let the unit be inoperative. If what Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the IOC submits is accepted then the results would be absurd. For a wrongful exercise of power by a statutory authority, the petitioner, who had already suffered the wrongful action, would further suffer by his dealership ending. The result would be that for a mistake committed by government officials, the punishment would be given to the petitioner, who has nothing to do in the matter. It is, for this reason, the submission on behalf of IOC cannot be accepted. Once this Court had directed the licence to be restored it goes without saying the supply had to be restored as well. Restoring licence is of no purpose if supplies thereunder are not restored. Petitioner is not interested in a piece of paper that is licence but is more interested in what flows from the licence that is kerosene oil supply to it. A licence without supply is no licence at all. Thus, the ground of IOC being non est. I direct that as the licence of the petitioner has been restored by the District Authority, IOC would immediately restore the supply to the firm. The order of this Court should be complied with within a period of one month from today. The writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)