KRISHNA SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the correctness, validity and propriety of Memo No. 1519 dated 26th July, 1999 wherein, as alleged by the petitioner, the District Magistrate by non -speaking order has cancelled the retail trade -cum -public distribution shops licence of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that on receipt of the certain complaints an inquiry was directed to be made under the authority of the District Magistrate, the inquiry was made and there after, a proposal was made by the Special Officer, Incharge, Rationing, Patna to the District Magistrate. After receiving the said report, the District Magistrate so also the Special Officer, Incharge, found that the licence granted in favour of the petitioner would validly be cancelled, placing strong reliance upon the proceedings recorded in the order -sheet. Learned Counsel for the State submitted before the Court, that final order was passed by the Special Officer, Incharge, and as the order directing cancellation of the licence, as contained in Annexure -1, has been countersigned by the said officer, there is no scope to hold that the order was passed by the District Magistrate. He further submits that as in accordance with Clause 28 of Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of licences) Order, 1984 there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal is available to the petitioner, this Court should not interfere.