10/ 07.04.2026 : Heard Miss Apurva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A-III, appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

2. This petition has been filed for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 11.10.2012 by which the P.D.S licence of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent no.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner namely, late Noor Mohammad Ansari was provided licence in the year, 1988 who died leaving behind the petitioner and other family member dependent on him after continuing the shop for more than 20 years. She draws the attention of the court to letter dated 10.12.1996 and 14.10.1998 contained in Annexure-1 and 2 of the petition and submits that then the Government of Bihar by the said letter decided to grant license to the dependent of licensee, if the licensee died after running the shop of public distribution system for eight years. By way of referring the letter dated 10.04.2006 contained in Annexure-3 of the writ petition she submits that the Government of Jharkhand after creation of Jharkhand put embargo on issuance of new license, however issued instruction to concerned authority to issue license on compassionate ground after following the process. She further submits that in the light of aforesaid decision the petitioner was granted license on compassionate ground in view of annexure-4 of the writ petition. She further submits that however by order dated 20.03.2012 the respondent no.4 cancelled the license of the petitioner. She submits that the said order was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1821 of 2012 and the said writ petition was allowed by order dated 17.07.2012 quashing the order dated 20.03.2012 and liberty was provided to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. She next submits that thereafter the status of license of the petitioner was restored by order dated 22.09.2012 however, the petitioner was not allowed to collect article and distribute the same. She further submits that was only eye wash and the petitioner was restricted not to distribute any article and thereafter the petitioner again received show cause by letter dated 22.09.2012 as to why the license of the petitioner should not be cancelled. She submits that by the impugned order on the basis of resolution no. 1580 dated 06.08.2009 the license of the petitioner has been cancelled only on the ground that BPL, Women Self Help Groups can be granted license on the compassionate ground. She further submits that the said resolution dated 06.08.2009 is not debarring other compassionate allotment of license and inspite of that in absence of any cogent reason, the said order has been passed. She submits that there is no illegality done by the petitioner in the light of Clause 11 of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984, license cannot be cancelled or suspended if there is no violation of Clause-11 is made by the petitioner. On these grounds, she submits that this writ petition may kindly be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A-II appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposes the prayer and submits that petitioner is having alternative remedy by way of filing the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled in the light of resolution no. 1580 dated 06.08.2009 wherein only BPL, Women Self Help Groups can be granted license and in view of that the license of the petitioner has been cancelled as such there is no illegality in the impugned order and this writ petition is fit to be dismissed.

5. There is no doubt that if any alternative remedy is there the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India restraining to exercise the discretionary power however this writ petition is of the year, 2012 and already entertained and several orders have been passed, the Court finds that at this