KRISHNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner held a retail licence under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification Order), 1984 and a dealership under the Public Distribution System. He was made an accused in a criminal case in which allegations were that he committed irregularities in distribution of the foodgrains allotted to him. The trial ended in his acquittal. Nevertheless, the licensing authority cancelled his licence issued under the Unification Order. In appeal the order passed by the Licensing authority was affirmed.

(2.) MR . Griyaghey, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under clause 11(1) of the Unification Order a licence could be cancelled only in case of conviction in a criminal case and therefore the (sic) passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, cancelling his licence though he was acquitted in the criminal trial were illegal and unsustainable in law.

(3.) THIS is, however, not the end of the matter. The grant of a retail licence under the Unification Order is one thing and the grant of dealership under the Public Distribution System is something quite different. It is true that for a dealership under the Public Distribution System the dealer must have a retail licence but the converse evidently is not true and it cannot be said that every one having a retail licence must also be given a dealership under the Public Distribution System. The dealership under the Public Distribution System is simply an agency and would be governed by the law of agency in which the government is the principal and the dealer is the agent. If for any reason the principal no longer wishes to continue some one -as dealer, the dealership cannot be claimed as a matter of right.