IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1289 of 2009
Sazzad Ansari, Son of Late Nemzzuddin Ansari, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS
Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ----- Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari.
5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents.
with
CWJC No.1291 of 2009
Sayed Shakil Mehadi, Son of Sayed Mumtaz Mehadi, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS
Chhatauni, District East Champaran. ------ Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari.
5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents
with
CWJC No.1296 of 2009
Bashila Khatoon, Wife of Late Sannadan Khan, Resident of Mohalla Khuda Nagar, PS Chhatauni,
District East Champaran. ------ Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari.
5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents.
with
CWJC No.1428 of 2009
Shiv Ram, Son of Late Gokul Ram, Resident of Mohalla Baluatal, PO Motihari, PS Motihari
Town, District East Champaran. ----- Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Sub-divisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Sadar, Motihari.
5. The District Supply Officer, East Champaran, Motihari. ----- Respondents.
-----------
5 4.11.2011 The order impugned contained in
Annexure-4 is common to all these four writ
applications. By the impugned order, the Sub-
divisional Officer, Sadar, Motihari, has
2
cancelled the ‘Thela’ licence of the
petitioners on the ground that they did not
deposit their renewal fee within time. The
same order was challenged in another writ
application by one Rakesh Kumar vide CWJC No.
18691 of 2008. This Court while considering
the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar,
Motihari has quashed the order on the ground
that although there was an order in the file,
directing the petitioners to deposit the
renewal fee, no notice was ever issued to the
‘Thela’ vendors so that they could deposit the
renewal fee within the time stipulated. After
coming to this finding, this Court quashed the
order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Sadar,
Motihari.
These four writ applications will be
covered by the decision in CWJC No. 18691 of
2008.
Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)