IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.911 of 2008 Rameshwar Ram, son of Late Bauku Ram, resident of village-Jibachpur, Block-Gamharia, District-Madhepura. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura. 3. Block Supply Officer, Gamharia, District-Madhepura. 4. Supply Inspector, Gamharia, District-Madhepura. -Respondents. ----------- 02 13.11.2009 The petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System at Madhepura. His premises were inspected, pursuant whereto, based on certain complaints and irregularities found, a first information report was lodged. He was issued a show cause notice as against cancellation. As the first information report had been lodged, petitioner’s licence had been suspended. Petitioner filed his show cause thereafter. It is not in dispute that there was a meeting of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Supply Officer, in which it was decided that all fair price shops licensee whose licences had been suspended and had remained so for 90 days, the suspension should not be revoked and licences cancelled. It is pursuant to the said decision, apparently, that ultimately rejecting petitioner’s show cause whose licence had earlier been suspended, is now cancelled. In the meantime, the petitioner has already been exonerated by the criminal Trial Court after a full-fledged trial. Petitioner then submits that in case for the similar charges the petitioner has been acquitted, it will not be just and - 2 - proper to cancel his licence. It is further submitted that cancellation of licence, in view of the facts aforesaid, has been done virtually at the dictates of the Collector, who is the Appellate Authority. Having considered the matter, in my view, the order cancelling petitioner’s licence by order dated 20.07.2007, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhepura, cannot be sustained. The petitioner having been acquitted in the criminal case after full- fledged trial for the same charges, the cancellation order cannot be sustained. Secondly, it is apparent from various proceedings of the meeting of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Supply Officer that cancellation is pursuant to a decision taken in a meeting. Be that as it may, as the petitioner has been acquitted, it is only just and proper that the order cancelling the licence be set aside and the licence of the petitioner be restored. The order cancelling licence is set aside. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)