1. ' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, J.-By this writ petition, orders dated 5-12-1978 and 10-3-1979 are challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that respondent No, 2, that is, Commissioner had no powers under the Azad J & K Wheat, Wheat Atta, Maize, Rice and Sugar Distribution Order, 1974 to entertain any revision petition against the order of the District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner by which the dealership licence of respondent No, 3 i,e, Shaukat Jahangir was cancelled. There could have been an appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate within 30 days from the order of the District Magistrate whereas the revision petition was filed after the lapse of the period of limitation prescribed. Moreover, the impugned order dated 5-12-1978 was passed by the Commissioner behind the back of the petitioner and as such no opportunity was given to him of being heard. And that review order on the application of the petitioner was made without considering the effect of the appointment of the petitioner as a dealer for distribution of controlled items of foodstuff within the area specified, namely 'Bhagat Chak'. The allegations of the petitioner were converted by the respondents.
2. ' The learned counsel for the parties were heard. It was vehemently urged by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of Notification No, 325-400/76 dated 29-6-1976 issued by the Secretary Food, a licence of dealership was validly issued to him and by this Notification, the District Magistrate was to issue new dealership licences to the persons qualified for the purpose. As at the time the licence of dealership was issued to him, the dealership licence of respondent No, 3 already stood cancelled, a new dealership licence granted to the petitioner, could not be cancelled by the Commissioner while sitting in revision against the order of the cancellation of licence of the respondent by the District Magistrate without affording him an opportunity of being beard. Before we discuss this point raised by the learned counsel, it would be convenient to state ' that there was an appeal pending before the Commissioner when authorization of distribution of Wheat and Rice, etc. Was given to the petitioner. It was inadvertently that the Commissioner used the word 'revision' instead of appeal in his order dated 5-12-1978. The appeal which was taken to the Commissioner cannot be termed as time-barred because no limitation is prescribed to file an appeal against an order of cancellation of a licence of dealership. The limitation which is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned with an order of refusal of authorisation by the District Magistrate. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appeal was time-barred. The very order of 1974 referred to above by the petitioner under which licences are issued provides that an appeal 'against an order of cancellation of dealership licence would lie to the Commissioner and as such it cannot be held that the Commissioner had no powers to deal with the appeal of respondent No, 3 under law. He has been a lawful authority which has had the powers to dispose of the matter disputed. Nevertheless, there may be no provision for review but it was the petitioner himself who moved the Commissioner to review his order dated 5-12-1978 and during the hearing of the review petition it was reported to the Commissioner by tho District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner) that the petitioner was not to ,have or possess dealership licence. It was the respondent for whom a recommendation was made to give continuity to his licence. So the case of the petitioner was considered by the Commissioner on merits. He may not have had powers to - review his orders but it was on the move of the petitioner that he, in order to satisfy himself about the propriety of his order, looked into the merits of `the case keeping the impugned order in view and proceeded with the case accordingly and came to the conclusion that his order dated 5-12-1978 was not to b disturbed especially when the licence issuing authority had made a recommendation in favour of the respondent against the petitioner whos conduct (in relation to business of dealership) was not happy one. In these circumstances, it will not be proper for us to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction which is discretionary one in favour of the petitioner. In view of this discussion, it can safely be declared that there was nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 5-12-1978 passed by the commissioner who was a lawful authority. No mala fide in respect of the impugned order was attributed to the authority concerned by the petitioner and so we may not be able to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lawful authority and when that order stands, it will be needless for us to say anything about the order dated 6-12-1978 which was passed on the initiation of proceedings by the petitioner himself.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that by Notification No, 325-400/76 dated 20-6-1976 all the old licences issued prior to publication of that Notification stood cancelled and so there was no old licence existing which could further be renewed by the Licensing authority in favour of the respondent. This may not be so. By this Notification the old licence-holders were not deprived of their rights. However, the licences, in light of this Notification, would be considered while effecting their renewal. Apart from this we find that the licence which was issued to the petitioner was a terminative one-renewable from year to year (year corresponding to fiscal year, i,e, July 1st to June 30th of every year). The licence was first issued to the petitioner in the year 1976-77 and it was then renewed for the year 1977-78 (from 1-7-1177 to 50-6-1978) but it seems that afterwards it was not got renewed by the petitioner. Copies of the licence produced by the petitioner alongwith his petition show that there was no renewal of the licence after 30-6-19 78. It means that at the time the impugned order dated 5-12-1978 was passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner had no valid licence so as to enable him to carry on distribution of wheat and rice, etc. The petitioner is silent as to why the licence was not renewed for that year. Thus, the learned Advocate-General representing respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is perfectly rights to say that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. He ought to have applied for the renewal of the licence for the year 1978-79 and if there was any refusal of authorisation by the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate, then the petitioner could have gone to the Commissioner in appeal as provided in Order No, 522-69- LCSED/74 of 1974 but that was not done. It seems that for not faring well, his dealership licence was not renewed by the appropriate authority and that being so, there was nothing of the sort before the Commissioner, at the time he passed the impugned order, to cancel in relation to the licence claimed by the petitioner and the impugned order dated 5-12-1978 Aid not return any verdict of cancellation of licence claimed by the petitioner which was not even current at the time when the Commissioner acted in the matter finally.
4. ' Therefore, for the reasons above, this writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs.