Mr. Singh has submitted that invocation of Clause28 of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016 is faulty in the first instance, as there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had gone fugitive. He had been on anticipatory bail. However, we find that the petitioner was served and he replied to the notice as well. The second argument of Mr. Singh is that, from the perusal of the order of cancellation, it would appear that only on the accusation of few of the beneficiaries that food-grains for one particular month was not given, but entry was made in the ration-card, the accusations have been held to be correct. The licensing authority, therefore, has believed the statement of the beneficiary, without taking such statements through the wringers of veracity test. He further submits that if this was an isolated instance, the licensing authority was perforce required to be satisfied