IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15634 of 2008 YUGESH PRASAD GUPAT s/o Sri Lakshmi Prasad Gupta, resident of village- Ahiyapur, P.S. Haspura, District- Aurangabad. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Aurangabad. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Aurangabad. 3.The Sub-divisional Officer, Daudnagar, Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Haspura, District- Aurangabad. 6. The Supply Inspector, Haspura, Daudnagar. ----------- 2 28.1.2010 I.A.No. 8172 of 2009 has been filed for stay of the impugned order and the appellate order. State is present and with the consent of the parties, in view of facts being cleared, the writ petition itself being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner is a dealer appointed under the Public Distribution System at Ahiyapur in Daudnagar, District- Aurangabad. His place of business was inspected and certain allegations were found. While issuing show cause against proposed cancellation, his licence was suspended. Show cause having been filed, it was found unsatisfactory and as such a second show cause was issued and ultimately his licence has now been cancelled, which order has not been interferred with in appeal by the Collector, that is brought the petitioner before this Court. Petitioner has raised a very short issue. The submission is that in terms of Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 issued pursuant to the Central Government of the year 2001, once licence is 2 suspended then the suspension automatically stands revoked on expiry of ninety days as envisaged in clause 7(5) of the Bihar Order. It is further submitted that unlike the earlier Unification Order, 1984, there is no provision for interim suspension. Suspension has to be by way of punishment and as such suspension and cancellation are two punishments in alternative. Here the licence having been suspended, thereafter proceeding for cancellation could no be taken up. The authority had to make a choice in the very beginning whether to suspend or to cancel. Having considered the matter and heard the parties, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Having once inflicted the punishment of suspension of licence , on the same cause and for the sale allegation it is not open for the authority now to cancel the licence. A person cannot be punished twice for the same dereliction. The facts that the petitioner’s licence was suspended being undisputed, on the same dereliction there could not be a cancellation order later on . In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Subdivisional Officer, Daudnagar dated 29.2.2008 (Annexure 7) and the appellate order of the Collector, dated 13.9.2008 (Annexure 8) are hereby set aside. As more than ninety days have long since elapsed, the suspension would automatically deemed to have been revoked. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)