Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 744 (PAT)

Laxmi Yadav v. State Of Bihar

2006-08-22

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 6.7.2004, as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application, being an order of the respondent no. 3-Sub- divisional Officer, Phulparas, by which he has cancelled the license and dealership of the petitioner under Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984. The petitioner is a dealer appointed under Public Distribution System and has been granted a licence under the aforesaid order. On 12.5.2004 an FIR was, recorded giving rise to Phulparas RS. Case No. 59 of 2004. The petitioner was named as an accused therein on charges of committing murder. It is because of the aforesaid case that he could not attend to the shop. A notice to show cause for cancellation was issued to him. He submitted his show cause on 24.6.2004. On the same very day he was arrested in the aforesaid case and remained in custody upto 18.1.2006. After duly conducted trial by the Fast Track Court No. 1, madhubani, he was acquitted and thus released. Consequent to his acquittal he came to learn that having filed a show cause, by the impugned order dated 6.7.2004 his licence and dealership had been cancelled merely because of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. Now he having been acquitted in the criminal case, he moved the authority by a purported application, as contained in Annexure 7, for restoration of licence and his dealership. The authorities have not responded. It is thus submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the licence of the dealership could not have been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case. 3. Mr. Ojha learned counsel appear ing for the State has opposed this applica- tion on the ground that against order of cancellation statutory appeal is provided. In other words, that there being an alternative remedy this court should not interfere. I am not impressed with the said submission for the simple reason that the petitioner is not appealing against the said order. The petitioner submits that the said order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case which was pending. This ground has now became non est which entitles the petitioner for getting his licence restored. 4. in this connection I may refer to clause 13 of the Unification Order. The petitioner submits that the said order was passed on the ground that the petitioner was an accused in a criminal case which was pending. This ground has now became non est which entitles the petitioner for getting his licence restored. 4. in this connection I may refer to clause 13 of the Unification Order. Clause 13 provides that where a licensee is convicted for the contravention of any order made under the Essential Commodities Act, the Licensing Authority shall cancel his licence. 5. The proviso to clause 13 provided that where such conviction is set aside in any appeal or revision, the Licensing Authority may on an application of the dealer whose licence has been cancelled, restore the licence to such dealer. 6. In view of the said proviso the Licensing Authority would be well advised to act upon the application made by the petitioner. In case the application is not traced out the petitioner will be at liberty to file an application again and in the light of observation made above the Licensing Authority may pass necessary orders within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. 7. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observation.