BRIJ MOHAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.2.99 (Annexure -2), passed by the Commissioner of Magadh Division, Gaya, in Supply Appeal No. 39/98 (Brij - Mohan Mishra vs. State of Bihar), where by he has dismissed the petitioner 's appeal, and has upheld the order datdd 24.6.98 (Annexure -1), passed by the District Supply Officer in L.No.9/91 (Mishra Trading vs. State of . Bihar). By the said order - dated 24.6.98, the District Supply Officer, had cancelled the licence of the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order '), on the ground that the petitioner has not been carrying on his business at the allotted place.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted licence under the Order to carry on whole -sale business . in foodgrains in the allotted place within .the. precincts of the Bazar Samiti, ' Gaya. The District Supply Officer received adverse reports from different authorities that the petitioner never carried on his business from the allotted place, and was operating from outside. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid order 24.6.98 (Annexure -1) was passed whereby the petitioner 's licence was cancelled. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya, and submitted that the aforesaid order dated 24.6.98 (Annexure -1) was passed without notice to him, and he was also not supplied with copies of reports adverse to him and adverted to in the order. After consideration of the materials, the appellate order dated

(3.) LEARNED Government counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appellate order has been passed in the presence of the petitioner herein, and he had every opportunity to explain his position before the appellate court but he completely failed to do so. Not even semblance of an attempt was made. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid order dated 24.9.98 (Annexure -3), was passed in case no. 19/98, in a different context, inasmuch as the appellants therein were able to convince the appellate court about a prima facie case and, therefore, the matter was remitted back to the first authority, which is not the position in the present case.