Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has sought restoration of the Kerosene Oil Licence No. 2488/82. The facts giving rise to the present petition are briefly as follows : 1. The petitioner was granted licence in 1982 and he has been running the kerosene Oil Depot in pursuance to the said Licence at E-2/254, Nand Nagri, New Delhi. A raid was conducted on 28. 10. 1991 in which it was alleged that there was a shortage in the stock of kerosene by 1386 litres. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and registered and based upon the lodging of the FIR and the allegations contained therein the petitioner s licence was cancelled. On the allegations contained in the FIR a departmental inquiry was conducted and licence was cancelled. Pursuant to the said FIR a full-fledged trial was conducted and the same was concluded on 8. 1. 1997 in which it was held that the stock shortage of 1386 litres of oil was duly explained and this resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. After acquittal the petitioner applied for restoration of the licence. However, his application was rejected by the order dated 20th June, 1997 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner, being aggrieved filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the financial Commissioner on 1. 9. 1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP 5320/1997 in this Court wherein by an order dated 21. 11. 2001 this Court remanded the matter to the Financial Commissioner for fresh hearing. After remand, the Financial Commissioner heard the matter and once again rejected the appeal by an order dated 19. 4. 2002. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. ( 2 ) FROM the facts narrated above, it is abundantly clear that the basis on which the licence was cancelled was the short stock of 1386 litres of oil. A full-fledged trial was conducted on the basis of this allegation which resulted in the acquittal of the petitioner. However, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cancellation of the licence was because of the culmination of the departmental proceedings which are separate from criminal proceedings and, therefore, the acquittal would have nothing to do with the cancellation of the licence. However, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cancellation of the licence was because of the culmination of the departmental proceedings which are separate from criminal proceedings and, therefore, the acquittal would have nothing to do with the cancellation of the licence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find myself unable to agree with this submission urged on behalf of the respondent. The FIR was lodged and a trial was held which resulted in acquittal. This implied that on the same facts and circumstances and allegations a Court of competent jurisdiction held that no case was made out against the petitioner. It also held that stock-shortage was satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the same allegation of stock-shortage cannot be held to be a ground for cancellation of the licence. It also does not appear to be equitable that the petitioner be deprived of his licence on the same facts and circumstances on which he has been acquitted by the Trial Court. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the impugned order dated 19. 4. 2002 passed by the Financial commissioner is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner s Kerosene Oil licence be restored. No order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.