IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10483 of 2005 Pramod Kumar Roy son of Late Dashrath Roy, resident of village Malikpur, P.S. Baliabelone, District-Katihar. … … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Katihar. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar. ….. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with M/s. D.N.Tiwari & Anujit Sinha, Advocates. For the respondents : G.P.8 ---------------- 03/ 25.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 20.04.2005 by which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi cancelled the licence of the petitioner for the dealership under Public Distribution System and also challenging order dated 30.03.2005 by which the Collector, Katihar directed the Sub-Divisional Officer for cancelling the petitioner’s licence no.17 of 1989 granted under the provision of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Collector had no business to direct the Sub-Divisional Officer for cancelling the petitioner’s licence as the Sub-Divisional Officer being the licensing authority had the jurisdiction to cancel or allow the licence to continue after applying his independent mind on the basis of facts and materials available before him. He further argues that the Collector being the appellate authority against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, should have refrained himself from - 2 - making such recommendation to the Sub-Divisional officer. He also avers that in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not avail the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and was constrained to file this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State of Bihar and its authorities vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and states that no illegality was committed by the Collector as he was the superior authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer. He further states that the Sub-Divisional Officer was quite justified in passing the impugned order as the conduct of the petitioner was not satisfactory. 5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record and the provisions of law, it is quite apparent that such recommendations by the Collector is not as per any provision of law and it was absolutely unwarranted especially because it was the Sub-Divisional Officer being the licensing authority to look into the matter himself and decide such question on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties. It further transpires from the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer that he has not considered the materials on record and had passed the impugned order only on the basis of the recommendation of the District Magistrate. 6. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders of the authorities concerned cannot be sustained in law and they are - 3 - accordingly quashed and the petitioner is permitted to continue to work as Public Distribution System Dealer under the licence granted to him by the licensing authority. However, the licensing authority will be at liberty to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner, if he himself finds any illegality committed by the petitioner and shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any authority and shall decide the matter by a speaking order in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is allowed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)