IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14750 of 2009 1. RATAN KUMAR S/O LATE SHYAM LAL BHAGAT VILL.- LAKSHMAN BIGHA, TOLA- SIRI KHEN, P.S.- PARAIYA, DIST.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKARI, GAYA 5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER PARAIYA, GAYA 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA 7. THE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, SUPPLY GAYA ----------- 02 16.12.2009 Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya dated 30.04.2008 by which his licence under the provisions of the Bihar Public Distribution Order, 2007 has been cancelled. This order has not been interfered by the Divisional Commissioner by his order dated 27.11.2008, on the ground that he should have preferred an appeal to the Collector in stead of filing the application before him. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition has to be allowed on two simple grounds. Firstly, as apparent from the order sheet of the Sub - 2 - Divisional Officer, petitioner was directed to be present in Janta Darbar. He was found absent. He was noticed, why his licence should not be suspended, because he failed to obey the directions in the Janta Darbar. Petitioner filed his show cause. Show cause was not found satisfactory and his licence was suspended by the Sub Divisional Officer. Thus, licence was suspended after issuance of show cause and considering it and, as such, it was a suspension in terms of Clause-7(iv) of the 2007 Order. Clause-7(iv) of the Order provides two alternative arrangements. First suspension after hearing and the second cancellation after hearing. Thus, it is clear that once the licence is suspended on the same ground and on the same proceeding, it cannot be then cancelled. Here, it is apparent that first after show cause, the licence was suspended and then it has been cancelled. That is not permissible and, as such, the cancellation cannot stand. Secondly, - 3 - Clause-7(v) provides that once the licence is suspended, it cannot remain in suspension for more than 90 days. It then provides that after suspending the licence, the matter should be reported to the District Level Committee, which would then consider whether to revoke the suspension at an earlier date than 90 days or not. The order sheet of the Sub Divisional Officer would show that though he suspended the licence but when he was making recommendation to the District Level Committee in terms of Clause-7(v) aforesaid, he clearly noted that the licence was suspended not because the petitioner violated any terms and conditions of the licence or because of any other dereliction except that he was not present in the Janta Darbar and as he was asked to be. Thus, in fact, the Sub Divisional Officer himself gave a clear finding that petitioner was in fact innocent. However, the jurisdiction of the District Level Committee is to see - 4 - whether period of suspension be curtailed or not. It will not there to recommend cancellation as is apparent from Clause-7(v) of the order. Here, the cancellation order was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer not on his own volition but on the direction of the District Level Committee on which the Collector is the Chairman. There was no such authority in the District Level Committee and even that direction was that all persons who had not appeared in the Janta Darbar, their licences should be cancelled. Regrettably, we are not living in an autocrat State but we are living in a democratic society governed by rule of law. Such a direction cannot be issued nor is it warranted by Clause-7(v) of the order aforesaid. Thus, the order having been passed at the behest of the Collector of the district, there was no use of filing an appeal as filing an appeal before the authority who is in seisin of the matter, is an empty - 5 - formality. Petitioner, thus, rightly approached the Divisional Commissioner, who failed to see the merit in the case and dismissed the same. That order cannot stand, as the order of the Sub Divisional Officer is itself without jurisdiction. The order cancelling petitioner’s licence is, thus, set aside. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)