IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18860 of 2008 RAJENDRA PODDAR SON OF LATE SINGHESHWAR PODDAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANDHI TOLA (BAGHMARA) POLICE STATION MANIHARI DISTRICT KATIHAR. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR, BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KATIHAR, BIHAR. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KATIHAR, BIHAR. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANIHARI, KATIHAR, BIHAR. 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KATIHAR, BIHAR. 6. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, MANIHARI KATIHAR, BIHAR. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 8. 22.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Manihari bearing memo no. 89 dated 18.1.2008, Annexure-6, whereunder on the instruction of the Collector Katihar the PDS license of the petitioner has been cancelled. Earlier the PDS license of the petitioner was suspended by Sub-divisional Officer, Manihari under order bearing memo no. 1830 dated 24.12.2004, Annexure-3. After suspension of the PDS license of the petitioner matter was inquired into by the 2 licensing authority i.e. Sub-divisional Officer, Manihari who under recommendation dated 15.12.2006, Annexure- 5 considering the minor nature of the irregularities recommended for restoration of the license after giving him warning, the Collector, Katihar differing with the recommendation instructed the licensing authority to cancel the license of the petitioner. In compliance of the instruction of the Collector the appellate authority the licensing authority passed the impugned order dated 18.1.2008, Annexure-6 cancelling the license. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time when the PDS license of the petitioner was suspended the licensing authority was the Sub-divisional Officer who had to take the decision in the matter on his own discretion without consulting the appellate authority in any manner. In this back ground it is submitted that the order impugned cancelling the license of the petitioner passed by the Sub- divisional Officer on the instructions of the Collector is wholly without jurisdiction and is fit to be set aside with direction to the licensing authority to pass fresh orders without being impressed by the advise and instruction of the appellate authority i.e. Collector of the District. 3 3. Counsel for the State did not dispute the submission that at the relevant time Sub-divisional Officer was the licensing authority but submitted that Collector of the District being appellate authority has instructed the licensing authority to cancel the PDS license of the petitioner and such direction was binding on the licensing authority. He further submitted that against the order passed on the instructions of the Collector petitioner should have availed the remedy of further appeal/revision before the Food Commissioner. I regret not to accept the aforesaid submission cancellation of the PDS license of the petitioner is in exercise of the administrative powers of the licensing authority. The administrative powers ought to have been exercised by the licensing authority on his own discretion without being impressed by the advise of the appellate authority. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 18.1.2008 and remit back the matter to the licensing authority to pass a fresh order in the matter without being impressed in any manner by the advise or instruction of the Collector, Katihar. Appropriate final order in this regard be passed in the licensing authority i.e. Sub-divisional Officer, Manihari , as early as 4 possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before S.D.M. Manihari. Ibrar/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)