JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.

Heard Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anisul Haque, the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.06.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Saharsa/the Licensing Authority, whereby his license has been cancelled as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority, viz., the Collector, Saharsa, dated 31.12.2021, whereby the order passed by the Licensing Authority has been sustained.

3. It appears from the records that 48 bags of wheat were found loaded on a vehicle in front of the P.D.S. shop of one Narain Yadav. Consequently, Nauhatta (Darhaar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 47 of 2019 was registered for investigation under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question.

4. On receipt of such report, the Collector, Saharsa directed for an enquiry regarding the source from where the 48 bags of rice were purchased and further directed that all the P.D.S. shops falling in the vicinity of the place of seizure be also inspected.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Collector, Saharsa, the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner was attempted to be inspected but since it was found closed, the premises were sealed.

6. Be it noted that the petitioner had not been made an accused in the aforesaid case till the date of sealing of the premises.

7. Later, the premises were de-sealed and on inspection of the stock, it was found that it was absolutely updated and there was no shortage in the stock.

8. The report indicating such stock position has been brought on record.

9. After about two years, the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa intimated the Licensing Authority that during the investigation of the aforesaid F.I.R., viz., Nauhatta (Darhaar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 47 of 2019, the Supervising Police Officer had recorded the statement of the driver of the vehicle in question, who suspected the hands of the petitioner in transporting the rice for selling it in the black-market. Merely on the basis of the statement of the driver of the vehicle before the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who was supervising the case, the Superintendent of Police suggested to the Licensing Authority to cancel the license of the petitioner.

10. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was noticed and his explanation having been found to be unsatisfactory, the license of the petitioner was cancelled and such order of cancellation was sustained by the Appellate Authority, viz., the Collector, Saharsa.

11. Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid two orders on several counts. In case of the petitioner having been made accused in any criminal case involving breach of any one of the provisions of the E.C. Act, he could have been proceeded against only under Clause 28 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016, which mandates that his license would be suspended with immediate effect and after serving show-cause notice to him in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure and giving him sufficient opportunity to present his case, any lawful action would be taken within 180 days, as far as possible. That not having been done, the petitioner contends that it was a knee-jerk reaction of the Licensing Authority, who merely accepted the suggestion of the Superintendent of Police, who had gone beyond his jurisdiction to suggest for cancellation of the license of the petitioner.

12. The further ground of assail is that even when the petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice and stated that he has falsely been implicated by the driver of the vehicle in question and that his implication and suggestion for cancellation of his license came only after two years of the petitioner running his P.D.S. shop uninterruptedly, such explanation was never adverted to by either the Licensing Authority or the Appellate Authority.

13. Lastly, it has been s