Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 717 (PAT)

Md. Sakim v. State of Bihar

2014-06-30

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
Order Heard Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, A.C. to G.P.13. 2. The writ petition questions the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Araria in Appeal No. 8 of 2007-08 whereby the challenge of the petitioner to the cancellation of license by the licensing authority i.e. the S.D.O. Araria dated 20.12.2007 has been rejected and the appeal dismissed. 3. Facts are not too elaborate. The petitioner was granted license under the then existing Bihar Trade Articles License Unification, 1984, copy of the same is placed at Annexure-1 of the writ application and is dated 13.10.2006. The record manifests that even when no irregularities or any complaints were received regarding violation of any provisions of the license or the control order, the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the licensing authority vide order dated 20.12.2007 placed at Annexure-3. The cancellation order manifests that in all 329 licenses had been issued to different persons under the Public Distribution System and since according to the statutory authorities the licenses had been issued without obtaining the concurrence and approval of the District Level Committee constituted under the Fair Price Shop Order 2007 issued under the Public Distribution System Control Order 2001, that the licenses of all such persons were recommended for cancellation and pursuant whereto the order of cancellation impugned at Annexure-3 has been passed. The petitioner being aggrieved by the cancellation preferred a statutory appeal before the appellate authority who is the District Magistrate and who by order dated 12.2.2008 has been pleased to remand the matter for consideration afresh by the licensing authorities as to whether the petitioner fulfilled the eligibility for grant of license. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 4. It is a matter of record that the license in question was issued under the Bihar Trade Articles Licenses and Unification Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘unification order’). It is not in dispute that under the ‘unification order’ the Sub Divisional Officer is a licensing authority and it is in this capacity that the license was issued. Under the ‘Unification Order’ there was no requirement of seeking approval of the District Level Committee. It is not in dispute that under the ‘unification order’ the Sub Divisional Officer is a licensing authority and it is in this capacity that the license was issued. Under the ‘Unification Order’ there was no requirement of seeking approval of the District Level Committee. The Central Government had issued a Public Distribution Control Order, 2001 to regulate the license issued under the Public Distribution System but the same was notified by the State of Bihar vide GSR No. 20.2.2007. No doubt the Fair Price Shop Order 2007 as notified by the State of Bihar under the Public Distribution Control Order 2001 in its Clause-2 required the Committee to approve the license recommended by the licensing authorities being the Sub-Divisional Officer but the provisions also saved all such licenses which were existing on the date when the order came into force. There is no dispute that the license of the petitioner was issued prior to the enforcement of the Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 by the State of Bihar containing the provisions regarding attestation/approval by the district level committee. Further the moment clause-2 of the Fair Price Shop Order saves existing licenses, the exercise of cancellation by the licensing authority relying upon this order becomes misconceived and in complete ignorance of the legal provisions. Surprisingly, the appellate authority while considering the appeal has also not applied its mind to this aspect while passing the impugned order. 5. This issue was earlier deliberated upon before this Court in a matter arising from CWJC No. 14529 of 2008 and allowed and which order of the learned Single Judge was approved in LPA No. 292 of 2012. 6. In the circumstances discussed, the orders impugned cannot be upheld and are accordingly set aside. The license of the petitioner stands restored. 7. The writ petition is allowed.