ORDER : The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in Vanaspati who is subject to the application of the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers' Licensing ORDER :, 1967. He seeks the quashing of Annexure-1 by which his licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Arrah. It is said that on 26.12.1977, the premises of the petitioner was visited by the officers of the Supply Department and a report was made on certain dereliction for which notice to show-cause was also issued upon the petitioner on 9.2.1978. The allegation broadly related to the violation of condition no. 4 (1) of the licence under the aforesaid ORDER :which reads as follows: "4. The licensee shall maintain the registers; (i) Stock Register, showing- (a) the opening stock on each day. (b) quantity of vanaspati received on each day with source of supply, (c) total quantities disposed on each day, and (d) closing balance at the end of the day;" 2. On 14.7.1978, the petitioner was granted a licence in the year 1978, that is to say, after he had shown cause in regard to the allegation against him indicating that the department was satisfied with the explanation otherwise there was no question of renewing his licence for the year 1978. The Department once again, for the reasons known to it, issued a notice on 29.3.1979 asking the petitioner to show cause once in regard to the dereliction alleged to have been found on 26.12.1977. This brought the petitioner to this Court who obtained an ORDER :of stay. 3. The point of law urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is now well settled by numerous decisions of this Court that a dealer is not required to maintain minute to minute account of the receipts and deliveries and is only required to show in his books of account the opening balance and towards the end of the business hour the closing balance which should include the arrivals and toe deliveries of goods. It is further submitted that this provision is pari materia the same as contained in the licence issued to retail dealer under the Bihar Foodgrains Dealers Licensing ORDER :and while considering the licences under this ORDER :the aforesaid point of law has been enunciated. One of the decisions is reported in 1972 PLJR 635 (Ramdeo Burnwal Vs. The State of Bihar). One of the decisions is reported in 1972 PLJR 635 (Ramdeo Burnwal Vs. The State of Bihar). I have also held earlier that in such a situation, the authorities would be well advised to ask the dealer to close the account as described above and he be given an opportunity to explain any excess or shortage that may appear on toe face of the record. The cancellation of the petitioner's licence, therefore, on this ground was entirely unjustified. I am further inclined to observe that the action of the authorities in wrecking up the matter in 1979 after having renewed the licence of the petitioner in July, 1978 for the year 1978, after the petitioner had shown cause to the earlier notice in regard to the same dereliction, deserves notice by higher authorities of the department concerned. 4. In the result, the application is allowed with costs and Annexure-1 is hereby quashed.