IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17593 of 2009 UMESH PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE BALESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL &P.O- PAHARPUR, P.S- AKBARPUR, DISTT- NBAWADAH. …. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM- COLLECTOR NAWADAH. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, DISTT- NAWADAH. 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, AKBARPUR, BLOCK, P.S- AKBARPUR, DISTT- NAWADAH. ….RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.K.P.Sinha, G.P.III, Ms. Sunita Kumari, A.C. to G.P.III. ------ 05/ 29.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. This writ petition is being finally heard and disposed of at this stage at the instance of learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, Nawadah (respondent no.3) by which all the consumers along with respective allotment of Trade Articles under public distribution system of the petitioner were tagged with another P.D.S dealer for distribution on the ground that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and licences given thereunder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither any order for cancellation has been passed nor any order of - 2 - suspension has been passed against the petitioner and hence the authority concerned has no jurisdiction to pass such order which is against the specific provisions of Government of Bihar, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 notified vide G.S.R. no.1 dated 20.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar Control Order of 2001’, for the sake of brevity). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that licence of the petitioner has been suspended, but he is unable to give any date or to produce a copy of the said order. Furthermore, in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that P.D.S. licence of the petitioner has been cancelled, but learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is typographical error and it should have been typed as ‘suspended’. 5. In the said circumstances, there is a dispute of fact as to whether the petitioner’s licence has been suspended by the concerned authority, but no such suspension order has been produced by the respondents and their learned counsel submits that entire file is missing. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the statement of the respondents-authorities. 6. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the impugned order has been passed without suspension or cancellation of the petitioner’s licence and hence the - 3 - said order is absolutely against the provisions of law and cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, impugned order dated 11.01.2007 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no.3 is hereby quashed with a liberty to the respondents-authorities to initiate a fresh proceeding if an F.I.R is pending against the petitioner and pass necessary order in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)