IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11451 of 2007 Rajendra Ram son of Bathu Ram, resident of village- Ram Nagar Mahesh, Police Station-Sri Nagar, District-Madhepura. … … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhepura. 3. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Madhepura. 4. The District Supply Officer, Madhepura. 5. The Supply Inspector -Cum -Block Supply Officer, Kumarkhand, Madhepura. 6. The Block Development Officer, Kumarkhand, Madhepura. … … Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mrs. Archana Sinha, A.C. to G.P. 14. ------- 05/ 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This writ petition is being finally heard and decided at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for challenging order dated 24.07.2007 (Annexure-10) by which Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhepura (respondent no.3) cancelled petitioner’s P.D.S licence no.09 of 1996 for Ram Nagar Mahesh Gram Panchayat without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner only on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner with respect to violation of the provisions of law. It is further prayed that the order of suspension of petitioner’s licence dated 21.11.2006 (Annexure-4) passed by the same authority due to the pendency of the said criminal case cannot legally continue as the case has already been disposed of and the petitioner has been - 2 - acquitted. 3. Although learned counsel for the respondents has filed counter affidavit and vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, but it is quite apparent that the provisions of Government of Bihar, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Bihar Control Order of 2001’) notified vide G.S.R.No.01 dated 20.02.2007 govern the instant case. 4. Clause 7(iii) of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 clearly shows that if an F.I.R. is lodged, the licence has to be suspended till the matter is pending before the court of law. No where in the said provision it is stated that due to lodging of an F.I.R. against P.D.S. dealer his licence can be cancelled. 5. Furthermore, clause (ii) of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 provides that suspension and cancellation are two different and distinct punishments and from the same cause of action two punishments cannot be granted. Hence, when the order of suspension had already been passed against the petitioner, there was no occasion for the authority to pass an order of cancellation of his licence. 6. In the said circumstances, the order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction, whereas the order of suspension of petitioner’s licence has to be limited only till the criminal case (F.I.R) is pending before the - 3 - court of law. 7. The petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit along with Annexure-12, which is judgment dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, disposing of Trial no.1487 of 2010 (G.R.No.1044 of 2006) arising out of Srinagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2006 for offences punishable under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and acquitting the petitioner of the said charges. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence is hereby quashed, whereas the order of suspension of petitioner’s licence can be legally operative only till 11.1.2010 and thereafter will be deemed to be non-est in the eye of law and revoked. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)