Order Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal for the petitioners and Mr Arjun Prasad the J.C. to S.C.I. appearing for the respondents. 2. There are four petitioners before this court who held retail trade licences under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984. From their numbers it appears that petitioners 1 to 3 were granted their licences in the year 1985 and petitioner no. 4 in the year 1993. The petitioners were also dealers under the Public Distribution System and had their respective fair price shops in different Panchayats in the sub-division of Barsoi. According to them they were granted dealerships 17 to 19 years ago and since then they were running their respective fair price shops. 3. The petitioners were given notice to show cause why their dealerships may not be cancelled on the ground that they were not the residents of the Panchayats in which their respective shops were situate. Petitioners 1 to 3 did not file any show cause to the notice. Petitioner no. 4 filed his show cause admitting that he was not a resident of the Gram Panchayat in which his fair price shop was situate. The Sub-divisional Officer, Barsoi cancelled the licences of petitioners 1 to 3 by his order dated 4.10.1998 (Annexure-1) and of petitioner no.4 by order dated 26.9.1998 (Annexure 1/1). 4. The petitioners have come to this court challenging these two orders cancelling their respective licences. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on a circular letter no. 8444, dated 8.10.1980 issued by the Food Commissioner, Bihar. In this circular letter certain guidelines and criteria were indicated for the grant of dealership under the Public Distribution System and one of the conditions was that the dealership should be given to a person residing in the Panchayat/ward in which the fair price ship was to be situate. According to the respondent authorities the petitioners licences were cancelled as they were granted the dealership in violation of the aforesaid condition as contained in the circular letter, dated 8.10.1980 (Annexure A). 6. Without proceeding further, it may be noted that a retail trade licence issued under the Unification Order is one thing and a dealership granted under the Public Distribution System for running a fair price shop is something entirely different. 6. Without proceeding further, it may be noted that a retail trade licence issued under the Unification Order is one thing and a dealership granted under the Public Distribution System for running a fair price shop is something entirely different. No one can run a fair price shop without holding a retail trade licence under the Unification Order because in running the fair price shop he would carry on trade in food articles. But the converse may not be true. A person having a retail trade licence may carryon private business on the basis of his licence even if he is divested of dealership under the Public Distribution System. Therefore, in a case where there has been some irregularity in the grant of the dealership under the Public Distribution System, I fail to appreciate how the licence under the Unification Order can be cancelled. At best the dealership under the Public Distribution System could be withdrawn. The orders passed by the Sub-divisional Officer cancelling the petitioners licences are, therefore, quite illegal for the aforesaid reasons alone. 7. Coming now to the question of revocation of the petitioners' dealership under the Public Distribution System. In this regard it has been noted above that the only ground in which the dealerships have been revoked is that it was granted to the petitioners in violation of the condition as contained in the circular letter, dated 3.10.1980. In this case I am not required to consider the validity of the condition as contained in the circular letter and assuming the condition to be legally valid, it has to be examined whether the action of the respondent authorities is proper and reasonable. In this regard, it may be noted that there is no allegation that the petitioners obtained dealerships on the basis of any misrepresentation or suppression of fact or by any deceitful means. There is neither any allegation against the petitioners of any irregularity in the running of their respective fair price shops. Thus even assuming that the dealerships were granted to them overlooking the condition of residence can it be said that the action of the respondent authorities in revoking the dealerships after 17 or 18 years, invoking the condition of residence in the same Panchayat was fair reasonable and proper. In my considered view the answer would be in the negative. Thus even assuming that the dealerships were granted to them overlooking the condition of residence can it be said that the action of the respondent authorities in revoking the dealerships after 17 or 18 years, invoking the condition of residence in the same Panchayat was fair reasonable and proper. In my considered view the answer would be in the negative. Even if the dealerships were granted due to oversight, that could not have been used as the ground for revocation of the dealerships after more than 17 or 18 years. 8. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned orders contained in Annexure 1 and 1/1 and direct the respondent authorities to restore, the petitioners' dealership and to allow them to run their respective fair price shops. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.