Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 2-6-1995 purporting to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 17-5-1995 at around 11.20 a.m. when the Additional District Supply Officer, Chas (Respondent No. 3 visited the fairprice shop of the petitioner, the shop was found closed although as per the direction, the shop was to remain open on that day. in response to notice to show cause, the petitioner submitted reply stating reason for keeping his fair-price shop crosed on the said date. However, his licence was cancelled by the impugned order. 4. Without going into the merit of the case we are of the view that for simple fact of keeping the shop closed for a day, the cancellation of licence of the petitioner is too harsh and arbitrary and as such cannot be sustained. Had it been a case that the petitioner was habitually keeping his fair-price shop closed, which, in turn, caused sufferings to the customers, that might have justified the impugned order cancelling his licence. 5. That being so this petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 2-6-1995 (Annexure-5) is quashed and Respondent No. 3 is directed to restore Che licence of the petitioner. Q