IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14798 of 2009 1. HARIBALLABH PASWAN S/O LATE AKAL PASWAN VILL- KHIRI, P.S. PARAIYA, DISTT. GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TEKARI, GAYA 5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER PARAIYA, GAYA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER GAYA 7. THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE SUPPLY, GAYA THROUGH THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER GAYA ----------- 3 12.04.2010 Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. State has filed the counter affidavit. The petitioner is a dealer under the Public Distribution System. His licence has been cancelled by order dated 30.04.2008 of the Subdivisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Gaya which has been rejected similarly on the ground that he is not competent to entertain the appeal and, as such, the present writ application. A perusal of the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer clearly shows that the only ground for cancellation of petitioner’s PDS licence was that he was required to attend the Janta Darbar held by the Divisional Commissioner which he had failed to attend and as such, on recommendation from the Office of the Divisional Commissioner, his licence was first suspended. Thereafter, enquiries were made and the Divisional Commissioner’s office being informed, recommended that if that be the solitary ground, 2 the suspension should be revoked. The Subdivisional Officer made recommendation to the Special Committee headed by the Collector, Gaya for revocation of the suspension. Much less accepting the recommendation, the Collector ordered for cancellation of the licence whereafter by the impugned order, the licence has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that firstly not attending Janta Darbar, to be held by the Divisional Commissioner who is not the licensing authority so far as petitioner is concerned, cannot be deemed to be a contravention of the terms and conditions of the licence. As such, the entire exercise to suspend and cancel the licence of the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction. It was secondly submitted that licence having been suspended after hearing and after having remained suspended for over 90 days, it lapses by itself by virtue of Clause 7 of the Bihar Public Distribution System Licensing Order, 2006. Once that happens, there cannot be any cancellation proceedings for the same. Further submitted that in the present case even the Divisional Commissioner has recommended later for revocation of suspension. In my view, learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Once the licence was suspended and it remained suspended for 90 days, there was no question of cancellation of any licence any further. Whether to suspend or to cancel is the prerogative of the licensing authority but he has to choose one of the two punishments. The two punishments cannot be imposed 3 simultaneously. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer dated 30.04.2008 is quashed. This writ application is allowed. It will be deemed that the petitioner is holding a valid licence subject to renewal. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)