IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.257 of 2011 Natyanand Yadav Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- 2 24.06.2011. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.2.2008, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Forbesganj suspending the PDS Dealership licence of the petitioner granted under the EC Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of suspension is by way of punishment and order of punishment by way of suspension cannot be infinite in nature. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Rajendra Rishideo Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2009(2) PLJR 348. Counsel for the State submits that under para 7 of order issued by the Government of India in terms of Clause 7 of the P.D.S. Control Order, 2001 a licence can be suspended pending decision of a criminal case in the court of law. He submits that a criminal case under section 7 of the E.C. Act has been instituted against the petitioner. It would no where appear from the impugned order that the order of suspension was passed pending adjudication of a criminal case. The impugned order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the licensing authority shows that the same has been passed for violation of the terms and conditions of the licence. The order of suspension is distinct from the order of cancellation whereas the 2 order of cancellation is for the whole of the period for which the licence was granted, the order of suspension even in form of punishment has to be for interim period otherwise there would be no difference in order of punishment and that of suspension. In this view of the matter, the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the S.D.O. Forbisganj is set aside and the matter is remitted to him for passing a fresh order in accordance with law. In the result, this writ application is allowed. Shashi ( S.P. Singh, J.)