IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13829 of 2006 Ramnandan Prasad Son of Sri Chandradeo Prasad, resident of village Garaibigha, Police Station Ghosi, District Jehanabad … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. District Magistrate, Jehanabad, 4. Licensing Authority-cum-Sub-divisional Officer, Jehanabad, … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Upadhaya, SC 20 Mr. Anurag Suman, AC to SC 20 … 6 29.09.2011 The petitioner, who claims himself to be fair price shop dealer having licence no. 06/85 assails validity of the communication as contained in memo no. 225 dated 21.04.2006 issued by the respondent no. 4, i.e., the Sub- divisioinal Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, as contained in Annexure 1, suspending his licence and directing not to allot PDS articles on the ground that a criminal prosecution has been launched against him under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act bearing Ghoshi Police Station Case No. 72/06 dated 19.04.2006. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioner was granted licence under provisions of the 2 Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Unification Order”). Under Clause 4(1)(c)of the Unification Order the period of licence granted would be valid up to 31st December next. The petitioner, however,has not appended a copy of the aforesaid licence no. 06/085 though in paragraph 4 of this application he asserted that he runs the fair price shop in question since 1985. Be that as it may, in terms of Clause 4 of the Unification Order, I will presume that licence no. 06/85 was valid up to 31st December, 1986. In terms of Clause 5 of the Unification Order the licence would have been renewed for one year/three years presuming that the licence was renewed for further years. However, in terms of Clause 5 of the Unification Order, the same must have lapsed during the pendency of the writ application since more than 4½ years have lapsed since its filing. The petitioner has not sought any other relief than setting aside the aforesaid order passed by the respondent no. 4 and revoking the suspension and restoration of the allotment of the PDS articles to the shop of the petitioner as a consequence thereof. In above view of the matter, it appears that the present writ application has 3 become infructuous. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ application the earlier Unification Order was replaced by the Central Government, which was notified by the Government of Bihar, Food, Supply & Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 vide Notification bearing G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.2.2007. Learned counsel took me through the aforesaid provisions. Clause 7((ii) thereof provides that if any licensee contravenes the provision, terms of the licence, duties responsibilities and order of State Government then the Licensing Authority shall suspend/cancel the licence by a written order. Clause 7(iii) thereof provides that if F.I.R. is lodged against the fair price shop dealers for contravention of the Act their licence shall be suspended till the matter is pending before the court of law. However, under Clause 7(v) it stands enumerated that suspension of licence shall be for a maximum period of 90 days. Learned counsel submitted that under the old order as well as under the new order as aforesaid it clearly stands stipulated that the period of suspension is for 90 days. However, this contention of the petitioner does not seem to 4 be correct as in case F.I.R. is lodged against the fair price shop dealers for contravention of an order issued under the Act, as per the aforesaid provisions, their licence would be suspended till the matter is pending before the court of law. Learned counsel then submitted that by further amendment brought in the aforesaid order by a fresh notification viz Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 dated 23.06.2011, the Clause (iii), (iv) and (v) of paragraph 7 of earlier Order have been omitted. Thus, according to him, the provisions with regard to suspension and cancellation of licence in case F.I.R. having been lodged or otherwise, now stands omitted. However, in that case the provision disclosing maximum period of suspension of licence, which has been stipulated as 90 days under Clause 7(v) of the earlier Unification Order also stands omitted. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice another provision under Clause 2.8(b)(ii) of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 wherein it stands enumerated that the licence shall not be renewed during the period of suspension of licence. However, after revocation of licence the same may be renewed by payment of full renewal fee in one instalment. 5 However, it is admitted case of the parties is that G.R. No. 08/2006 under section 7 of the Act is pending against the petitioner and one Radhey Sao and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted and cognizance for the offence was taken as back as on 27.09.2006. Thereafter the case has been transferred to the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad for trial and disposal. The State Government has taken a stand that the delay in conclusion of the trial has only been due to the delay in physical appearance of the petitioner before court concerned as no charges could be framed against him in time, however, the accused persons appeared on 24.01.2009 and thereafter charges have been framed and altogether six witnesses have already been examined. In above view of the matter, since the trial is still pending and it is in very advance stage of being concluded, I am not persuaded to interfere into the order as contained in Annexure 1 exercising my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, this writ application is dismissed. However, ex debito justitiae I direct the trial court to conclude the trial in G.R. No. 08/2006, Tr. No. 356/2011 6 pending in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad, expeditiously preferably within six months. It is made clear that in case the trial concerned is decided in favour of the petitioner and judgment of acquittal is passed then it goes without saying that the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to seek renewal/fresh grant of licence in accordance with law. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)