- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE appellant was not a party before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1238 of 2006 which has been allowed and the order of cancellation of licence of the private respondent dated 04.1.2006 has been set aside.
(3.) THE appellant's contention is that the appellant was not impleaded as party in the writ petition in spite of the fact that the cancellation of the licence order was passed at the instance of the present appellant's representation and that fact was pleaded by the writ petitioner himself. It is submitted that thereafter the appellant had been granted licence by the respondent -State under the provision of Bihar/Jharkhand Trade Articles (Licence Unification Control) Order, 1984. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent's licence was valid up -to 31.3.2006 but finding serious irregularities committed by the private respondent, his license was cancelled vide order dated 04.1.2006. it is further submitted that the appellant can demonstrate that the order dated 04.1.2006 is valid and legal order.;