JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition having been restored vide order of date passed on Restoration Application, as requested by learned counsels for parties, I proceed to decide this matter finally at this stage. 2. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Shukla, counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 3. Petitioner was granted licence for Tari shop on 26.3.2010. Thereafter some complaint appears to be made against petitioner that Criminal Case No. 31 of 1998 under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi is pending in the Court of First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi, whereupon a show-cause notice was issued on 5.5.2010, which he replied stating that in terms of Para 4 of Proforma G-28, he is not a person convicted under the statutes stated therein and therefore, there is nothing wrong in grant of licence to him. 4. Though respondent No. 3 held that the grant of licence in favour of petitioner in just and valid, but in appeal Excise Commissioner passed an order on 21.9.2011 cancelling licence. Thereagainst petitioner preferred Revision No. 30 of 2011 which has been dismissed by State Government by impugned order dated 6.1.2012. 5. The short question argued by learned counsel for petitioner is that there is no requirement that petitioner has to disclose pendency of criminal case and, therefore, the question of concealment of any fact by him does not arise. 6. Para 4 of G-28, which relates to information regarding some criminal case reads as under: ^^4& D;k vkosnd dHkh fdlh vkcdkjh vQhe ;k pjl MªDl dkuwu ds vUrxZr ;k fdlh xSj tekurh nLrkUnkth tqeZ esa ;k 1889 ds epZUMkbt ,DV ;k nQk 382] 489 Hkk0 n0 la0 esa n.Muh; fdlh tqeZ esa ltk ik pqdk gSA^^ English translation by the Court: 4. Whether applicant has ever been convicted under any Excise Act or under Anti-drugs Act involving opium or Charas or for any non-bailable cognizable offence or under the Merchandise Act, 1989 or for any offence punishable under Sections 382, 489 of I.P.C.” 7. There is no requirement in the aforesaid Format that an applicant for the aforesaid licence must disclose about a criminal case pending against him under any provision of I.P.C. other than what is mentioned in para 4. Admittedly, petitioner has not been convicted under any statute. There is no requirement in the aforesaid Format that an applicant for the aforesaid licence must disclose about a criminal case pending against him under any provision of I.P.C. other than what is mentioned in para 4. Admittedly, petitioner has not been convicted under any statute. The respondents themselves admits that merely a case is pending against petitioner under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 I.P.C. but that cannot be a ground to cancel licence since it cannot be said that petitioner has concealed some information, which he was supposed to disclose, but has not disclosed. Learned Standing Counsel, having gone through the aforesaid condition, could not seriously dispute that whatever information is required therein, does not include information regarding pendency of criminal case. 8. Once the respondents themselves do not require any information regarding pendency of criminal case, petitioner cannot be saddled with the responsibility that he must disclose it and failing to do so would justify an inference of concealment of a relevant information that a criminal case is pending against him. 9. Even otherwise, mere pendency of criminal case has no connection with the terms and conditions, which has to be stated/disclosed by applicant in the affidavit. Therefore, in my view, respondents have acted wholly illegally and the impugned orders cannot sustain. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 21.9.2011 and 6.1.2012 are hereby quashed. —————