IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18692 of 2010 RAMCHANDRA PASWAN, Son of Basudeo Paswan, resident of Village-Kathautia Kewal, P.S.-Fatehpur, Distt.-Gaya Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya ----------- 2. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of his Public Distribution System license by order dated 11.1.2010 on the ground of institution of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2008 against him under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code only. It is submitted that earlier the license of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 12.7.2008. Relying on a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14703 of 2009, it is submitted that as interpreted by this Court under the Public Distribution System Licensing Order, 2007 Clause-7, there cannot be a double punishment both by way of suspension and cancellation as they have been interpreted to mean independent punishment. The First Information Report being under the provisions of the Penal Code only, Rule-7 sub 2 Clause-3 has no application at this stage as the First Information Report has not been registered under the Essential Commodities Act and it is purely speculative presently under which provision the charge may or may not be framed. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice issued both with regard to the suspension and cancellation. If a First Information Report had not been lodged against the petitioner, the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14703 of 2009 may have had its application indisputably to the petitioner. The distinction lies in the institution of a First Information Report against him. Even if this Court finds the cancellation to be bad on that ground, the institution of the First Information Report may be sufficient justification for continued suspension under Rule-7(III). But, this Court finds substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the First Information Report being under the provisions of the Penal Code only, it is completely speculative at this stage under what provision of law the charge may or may not be framed. But, if charge is framed against the petitioner under the provision 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, undoubtedly Rule- 7(III) then shall have it full application. With that observation, the impugned orders dated 12.7.2008 and 11.1.2010 are set aside without prejudice to the rights of the respondents. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)