IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18826 of 2010 RAM BILASH MANJHI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . ----------- 2. 03.12.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a PDS licensee. On grounds of institution of a criminal case against him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption of Act, his licence was suspended on 21.7.2008. The matter was then placed before the District Level Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 7(5) of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Control Order 2007. Thereafter the licence has been cancelled on 9.8.2010. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the suspension was on account of a criminal case under the IPC and P.C.Act. The suspension itself was not sustainable under Rule 7(3) which provides that only in the event of institution of a criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act the licence shall be suspended and shall continue so till the duration of the criminal case. The cancellation thereafter on that ground is therefore completely nonest. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the cancellation has not been made under Rule 7(3) but it has been ordered under the provisions of Rule 7(1) and (2) of the Control Order. A PDS licensee may violate conditions of his licence and violation of the conditions of the licence may also give rise to allegation for a criminal prosecution. If the allegations are for 2 violation of the conditions of the licence, the licence can be suspended under Rule 7(i) and (ii) and appropriate action taken under Rule (iv) & (v) with regard to the individual. If the licence is suspended on account of institution of a criminal case under the Essential Commodities Act there is no need for any prior show cause notice before suspension or placement of the mater before the District Level Selection Committee. The limitation of 90 days for continued suspension has no application. It was always open to the respondents to give a show cause notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. But if they proposed to take action for suspension of his licence on the ground of institution of a criminal case which was not under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, the suspension on that ground is not sustainable in law. If the suspension itself was not sustainable as being without authority quite naturally the cancellation on that ground, a sequel to the order of suspension automatically collapses. If the initial order was invalid, the subsequent order cannot stand. Needless to state that if the charges are framed against the petitioner under the Essential Commodities Act, Rule 7(3) shall have its full effect and operation with regard to the PDS licence of the petitioner notwithstanding the present order. The impugned orders dated 21.7.2008 and 9.8.2010 are therefore not sustainable. They are accordingly quashed. The application stands allowed but with the observations. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3