LAXMI VACLAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of order dated 6.7.2004, as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application, being an order of the respondent no. 3 -Sub - divisional Officer, Phulparas, by which he has cancelled the license and dealership of the petitioner under Bihar Trade Articles (Licence Unification) Order, 1984. The petitioner is a dealer appointed under Public Distribution System and has been granted a licence under the aforesaid order. On 12.5.2004 an FIR was, recorded giving rise to Phulparas RS. Case No. 59 of 2004. The petitioner was named as an accused therein on charges of committing murder. It is because of the aforesaid case that he could not attend to the shop. A notice to show cause for cancellation was issued to him. He submitted his show cause on 24.6.2004. On the same very day he was arrested in the aforesaid case and remained in custody upto 18.1.2006. After duly conducted trial by the Fast Track Court No. 1, madhubani, he was acquitted and thus released. Consequent to his acquittal he came to learn that having filed a show cause, by the impugned order dated 6.7.2004 his licence and dealership had been cancelled merely because of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case. Now he having been acquitted in the criminal case, he moved the authority by a purported application, as contained in Annexure 7, for restoration of licence and his dealership. The authorities have not responded. It is thus submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the licence of the dealership could not have been cancelled on the ground of pendency of criminal case.

(3.) IN this connection I may refer to clause 13 of the Unification Order. Clause 13 provides that where a licensee is convicted for the contravention of any order made under the Essential Commodities Act, the Licensing Authority shall cancel his licence.