IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9005 of 2006 DILIP KUMAR RAVIDAS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS --- For the petitioner: Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Rajendra Prasad A.A.G.I Mr. Ritesh Kumar J.C. to A.A.G.I --- 3. 29.7.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G. I for the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order 14.7.1998 passed by the Sub- divisional Officer, Hilsa (Nalanda) by which he has cancelled the P.D.S. Licence No.3/89 of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no show cause was served upon him before cancellation of his licence. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed a petition on 26.5.1998 ( Annexure-2) before the Block Supply Officer, Hilsa (Nalanda) stating that during the months of July, August, September and October on account of rains since two rivers and several Paeens have to be crossed, it is not possible to take the goods for distribution to village Phulwaria, the place where the shop is licenced and, accordingly, it was requested that he may be permitted to distribute the goods from village Yogipur itself instead of Phulwariya, for which the licence has been given. It is stated that on 29.5.1998, the Block Supply Officer passed an order permitting him to make distribution from village Yogipur instead of Phulwaria. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have published a notice 2 dated 31.5.1998 for unit holders concerned stating that the distribution of goods shall be made from village Yogipur until further notice. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 14.7.1998, the Subdivisional Officer, Hilsa cancelled the licence of the petitioner on the ground that he was not running the shop from the place fixed and for a long period of time, he was not supplying the goods in a regular manner with respect to which the consumers from three villagers had given a written statement. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the licence has been wrongly cancelled by the authorities. The impugned order has been passed on 14.7.1998 by the licensing authoirity, Sub-divisional Officer, Hilsa. The writ application itself has been filed after a gross delay of more than 8 years without any explanation for the same. In the writ application the petitioner has himself stated that after the cancellation of his licence, he had filed a petition before the Sub- divisional Officer, Hilsa on 28.12.2005 and had, thereafter, approached the District Magistrate/ Collector, Nalanda on 19.1.2006. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner had sat over the matter for a period of more than seven years even in approaching the authorities and has come to this Court 8 years after the passing of the impugned order. For the said reasons, this application is not fit to be entertained. Learned A.A.G.I further points out that the licence of the petitioner has been granted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Hilsa for a 3 particular place and it was not open to the petitioner to shift the same merely by obtaining an order from the Block Supply Officer. This Court also finds in the said application dated 26.5.1998 that the petitioner had merely stated that he had difficulty in reaching the goods to Phulwaria in the months of July, August, September and August, 2008 during rainy season, yet after obtaining an order to run the shop at his native village Yogipur from the Block Supply Officer, the petitioner on his own admission started running the shop in the said village from 31.5.1998 itself and did not confine the same to the period of four months, for which he had expressed his desire to run the shop from his native place. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)