M/S. LAKSHMIRAM BISHWANATH PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a wholesale dealer in Vanaspati who is subject to the application of the Bihar Vanaspati Dealers' Licensing Order, 1967. He seeks the quasing of Annexure -1 by which his licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate, Arrah. It is said that on 26.12.1977, the premises of the petitioner was visited by the officers of the Supply Department and a report was made on certain dereliction for which notice to show cause was also issued upon the petitioner on 9.2.1978. The allegation broadly related to the violation of condition No. 4 (1) of the licence under the (sic)aid order which reads as follows:

(2.) The point of law urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is now well settled by numerous decisions of this Court that a dealer is not required to maintain minute to minute account of the receipts and deliveries and is only required to show in his books of account the opening balance and towards the end of the business hour the closing balance which should include the arrivals and the deliveries of goods. It is further submitted that this provision is pari materia the same as contained in the licence issued to" retail dealer under the Bihar Food grains Dealers' Licensing Order and while considering the licences under this order the aforesaid point of law has been enunciated. One of the decisions is reported in : 1972 PLJR 635 (Ramdeo Barnwal vs. The State of Bihar) I have also held earlier that in such a situation, the authorities would be well advised to ask the dealer to close the account as described above and he be given an opportunity to explain any excess or shortage that may appear on the face of the record. The cancellation of the petitioner's licence, therefore, on this ground was entirely unjustified. I am further inclined to observe that the action of the authorities in wrecking up the matter in 1979 after having renewed the licence of the petitioner in July, 1978 for the year 1978, after the petitioner had shown cause to the earlier notice in regard to the same dereliction, deserves notice by higher authorities of the department concerned. In the result, the application is allowed with costs and Annexure -1 is hereby quashed.