IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6661 of 2008 Md. Idris Alam son of Late Mallik Kalimuddin, resident of village Kandhela, Panchayat-Kandhela Patol, Block & P.S.-Barsoi and District Katihar……………...................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar 3. The District Supply Officer, Katihar 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barsoi, District Katihar 5. The Block Supply Officer, Barsoi, District Katihar…….Respondents. For the petitioner :M/s Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, and Vikas Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the respondents : M/s Kumar Alok, SC -19 and Amit, AC to SC-19 ----------- 03/ 01.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. This writ petition is being considered and decided at this stage of hearing at the instance of both the parties. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing order dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-8) by which the Sub- divisional Officer, Barsoi cancelled petitioner’s Licence No.33 of 1985 for running Fair Price Shop on the ground that the District Magistrate had not approved recommendation for revocation of suspension of the petitioner’s licence and also for quashing the communication dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-7) issued by the District Supply Officer stating that the recommendation for revoking suspension of petitioner’s licence was not accepted. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer at 2 panchayat Kandela Patol, Block and P.S. Barsoi in the district of Katihar under retail licence no.33 of 1985 issued by the authority concerned. Subsequently a show-cause notice dated 11.07.2007 was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer to explain why his licence should not be suspended due to his failure to lift food grains meant for B.P.L./Antyodaya Schemes from the concerned godowns till the date fixed i.e. 07.07.2007. Although the petitioner filed his show-cause, but vide order dated 18.07.2007 his licence was suspended on the basis of report of the Block Supply Officer. 3. It is also stated that the petitioner filed another petition before the licensing authority, namely, Sub-divisional Officer on 27.07.2007 for withdrawal of the order of suspension on the ground that no information or notice was given to him for lifting the food grains by 07.07.2007. The Block Supply Officer in his letter to Sub-divisional Officer dated 30.07.2007 also supported the petitioner’s claim stating that he had not violated any condition of the licence. However, the Collector did not approve the proposal of revocation of suspension order of petitioner’s licence vide order dated 19.10.2007 and subsequently vide order dated 10.12.2007 the Sub-divisional Officer cancelled petitioner’s licence. 4. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a punishment of suspension of licence for the period of 90 days has been given and hence for the same offence another punishment for cancellation of licence cannot be legally 3 given to the petitioner and that too without any notice by the authorities concerned with regard to cancellation of licence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is a matter with regard to food grains meant for B.P.L/Antyodaya Schemes and for that purpose the Supreme Court has laid down some direction in its order dated 02.05.2003 passed in Civil Original Jurisdiction Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001 for distribution of food grains and in compliance of the said directions the State Government has been passing orders. 6. Neither any order of the Supreme Court has been produced nor even Annexures B and C of the counter affidavit filed by respondent nos.2 to 5 show that by the said order the Supreme Court has expressed any view that for an offence both punishments of suspension and cancellation can be granted by the authorities concerned. 7. Furthermore, Clause-7 of the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001 notified vide G.S.R. No.1 dated 20.02.2007 clearly shows that unlike Clause-11 of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification)Order, 1984 there is no provision of interim suspension without show-cause. In the said Order of 2001 suspension is by way of punishment after show-cause whereas cancellation is another punishment after show-cause. It is further clear from a reading of the said provision that suspension under 4 the said Order is not by way of any interim order until the final order of suspension is passed, rather both the punishments are distinct and separate. 8. Thus, it was for the authorities to select either to suspend the licence of the petitioner or to cancel it at the very initial stage. Once the punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authorities vide order dated 18.07.2007 (Annexure-3), there was no question for any further punishment of cancellation for the same offence. Furthermore the period of suspension also has to be limited to 90 days as per the aforesaid provision, hence the suspension initiated vide order dated 18.07.2007 could legally continue only till 16.10.2007 when the period of 90 days ended. 9. In addition to the aforesaid illegality, no notice was given by the authorities to the petitioner before passing the order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence dated 10.12.2007. 10. In the said circumstances, the order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence is absolutely illegal, perverse and cannot be allowed to legally stand. Thus, the said order of the authorities concerned dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure-8) is hereby quashed. Similarly, the order of the District Magistrate dated 30.10.2007 (Annexure-7) by which approval was not granted for revocation of suspension is also quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. harish/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )