JUDGMENT : PARTHA SARTHY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 5.7.2021 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss CWJC no. 24248 of 2018. 3. A License no. 89 of 2008 was granted to the appellant to run the Public Distribution System (in short ‘PDS’) shop at village Chandpur in the District of Siwan. 4. A Tata Magic vehicle was intercepted carrying a total of 30 quintals of grains for black-marketing and which was meant for distribution under the PDS, led to the registration of an F.I.R. An inspection of the PDS shop of the appellant was carried out wherein neither any food-grains was found in the godown nor did the appellant produce the relevant register etc. showing distribution of the same. The case of the appellant was that he had distributed the grains and the relevant register and other documents were with the Block Supply Officer. However, the Block Supply Officer denied the contention of the appellant. 5. A show-cause notice was issued by the Licensing Authority on 16.6.2016 asking the appellant to show-cause as to why the PDS dealer’s license granted to him be not cancelled in view of the violation of the conditions of the license. The appellant replied to the same on 22.6.2016. Taking into consideration the contentions raised by the appellant, by order dated 30.7.2016, the Licensing Authority was pleased to cancel the License no. 89 of 2008 of the appellant. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said order of cancellation vide Supply Appeal no. 76/2016-17 which was also rejected vide order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Siwan. The appellant thus preferred CWJC no. 24248 of 2018 against both the order dated 30.7.2016 passed by the Licensing Authority as well as the order dated 13.8.2018 rejecting the appeal. By order dated 5.7.2021, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said writ application against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 6. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, insofar as the distribution register at the relevant time was in the possession of the Block Supply Officer. 6. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the facts of the case, insofar as the distribution register at the relevant time was in the possession of the Block Supply Officer. Further there is no legal evidence against the appellant and the F.I.R. has been registered merely on the basis of suspicion. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reference to the counter affidavit filed in the writ application, has submitted that the Tata Magic vehicle which was intercepted was found carrying bags filled with 50 kgs of rice in each bag. The rice was found to belong to the appellant’s PDS shop and was meant for black-marketing, which led to the registration of the F.I.R. against the appellant. This led to the appellant’s shop being inspected and on no grains being found in the shop together with the appellant having failed to produce the register showing distribution of the grains, led to issuance of the show-cause notice in terms of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 and after considering the contents of the reply to show-cause notice filed, the order impugned was passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling the license of the appellant. There being no merit in the appeal preferred, the appeal was also rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, it transpires that on interception of the Tata Magic Vehicle by the residents of village Chandpur, grains were found loaded therein. An inquiry was ordered to be conducted. The villagers disclosed that the grains loaded on the truck were of the appellant and were being sent for black-marketing. Thus an inspection was conducted of the PDS supply shop of the appellant. No grains were found. On the appellant being asked to produce the relevant records, it is stated that the appellant informed in writing that the records were with the Block Supply Officer, Maharajganj. This led to seizure of the grains and registration of the F.I.R. being G.B. Nagar P.S. Case no. 126 of 2016 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. On the appellant being asked to produce the relevant records, it is stated that the appellant informed in writing that the records were with the Block Supply Officer, Maharajganj. This led to seizure of the grains and registration of the F.I.R. being G.B. Nagar P.S. Case no. 126 of 2016 under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 9. On further perusal of the record it transpires that a show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 10.6.2016 and on receipt of the reply to the same from the appellant, the opinion of the Block Supply Officer, Maharajganj was also obtained. The Block Supply Officer stated the contention of the appellant to be incorrect and in fact, categorically stated that the appellant had not submitted any register with him. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the procedure adopted including the specific stand of the Block Supply Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer, Maharajganj (Licensing Authority) by his order dated 30.7.2016 was pleased to cancel the license of the appellant with immediate effect and the appeal against the same was also rejected by order dated 13.8.2018 passed by the Collector. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant are mainly on facts which having been disputed and cannot be decided in this Court under this jurisdiction. The Court sees no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Block Supply Officer as recorded in the orders impugned, which has also been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed in the writ application on behalf of the respondents which includes the Block Supply Officer, Maharajganj. 10 .The Court finds no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed.