IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6688 of 2009 Bhagwan Jha, son of Late Mahendra Jha, Resident of village Hatani, Police Station Ghoghardiha, District- Madhubani. … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Food, Civil Supply and Commerce, Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Madhubani. 3. The District Supply Officer, Madhubani. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas, District-Madhubani. 5. The Block Supply Officer, Ghoghardiha, District-Madhubani. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. L.K.Yadav, Advocate. For the State : None. ------ 03/ 04.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing order dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-8) by which Sub- Divisional Officer, Phulparas, District-Madhubani (respondent no.4) cancelled petitioner’s licence no.50 of 2007 for fair price shop under the Public Distribution System on the direction of the District Magistrate, Madhubani (respondent no.2) vide order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-7) (Item no.11). 3. It is quite apparent from the records of this case that the petitioner has got a fair price shop under Licence No.50 of 2007 under Public Distribution System for Nauabakhar Panchayat within Block Ghoghardiha, Sub-Division-Phulparas in the district of Madhubani. It transpires that some allegations were levelled against the petitioner due to which vide order dated 16.09.2008, - 2 - the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas suspended the aforesaid licence of the petitioner. Thereafter an inquiry was held by the Block Supply Officer, Ghoghardiha, whereafter it was found that the allegation was not proved and the period of suspension of the licence of 90 days was going to end and hence it was recommended by the said Sub-Divisional Officer for revocation of suspension of petitioner’s licence. It further transpires that vide order of the District Magistrate dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-7) without any further inquiry and without giving any reason a direction was sent by the District Magistrate to the Sub-Divisional Officer for cancelling the licence of petitioner and in compliance of the said order the licence of petitioner was cancelled by the Sub- Divisional Officer vide order dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-8). 4. The law is well settled in this regard that after coming into force of the Govt. of Bihar, Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar Control Order of 2001’) notified vide G.S.R 1 dated 20.02.2007, the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 has ceased to be applicable to the fair price shop under Public Distribution System and for all practical purposes, the provisions of Bihar Control order of 2001 has been made applicable. Furthermore, in view of specific provision of Clause 7 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 it was for the authority to select either to suspend the petitioner’s licence or to cancel it at the very initial - 3 - stage and once the punishment of suspension has been chosen for the petitioner’s licence, there was no occasion or jurisdiction for them to pass any further order of punishment for the same offence against the petitioner, namely cancellation. Hence, the impugned order of the authority concerned cancelling the licence of the petitioner after 2007 apart from being illegal and perverse is absolutely without jurisdiction and cannot be legally allowed to stand. In this regard, reference may be made to a decision of this court vide order dated 14.07.2010 passed in batch of cases bearing CWJC No.6966 of 2008 (Pradhuman Chaudhary Vs. The State of Bihar & ors) and analogous cases. 5. Furthermore, under the provision of Clause 7(v) of Bihar Control Order of 2001, suspension of licence can be for maximum period of 90 days, whereafter, the order of suspension cannot legally continue. Hence, in the instant case, the licence of the petitioner having been suspended vide order dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure-3), the said suspension would automatically be stood revoked by the mid of December, 2008, whereafter the order of suspension of petitioner’s licence would be ceased to have any legal effect. 6. The District Magistrate or the District Level Selection Committee has no power to suspend and/or cancel the licence as the said power lies with the Sub-Divisional Officer as would be clear from clause 7(v) of the Bihar Control Order of 2001. Furthermore, the District Magistrate is the appellate - 4 - authority under clause 15 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 before whom the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer is to be challenged. Hence, if the District Magistrate who is the appellate authority starts passing such order there would be no meaning in filing any appeal against the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer and the provision of Clause 15 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 shall be made redundant by the authorities concerned, who have developed a habit of passing order without looking into the provisions of law which tendency has to be deprecated. 7. In the said circumstances, the direction given by the District Magistrate vide order dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-9) is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to stand and since the other impugned order dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-8) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the District Magistrate, it can also not legally stand. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the aforesaid impugned orders dated 26.02.2009 (Annexure-7) passed by the District Magistrate, Madhubani (respondent no.2) as well as order dated 30.03.2009 (Annexure-8) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas, Madhubani (respondent no.4) is quashed. This writ petition is thus allowed with an observation that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent no.4) dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure-3) regarding suspension of petitioner’s licence would - 5 - be limited to 90 days only from that order, whereafter the order of suspension of the petitioner’s licence would cease to have any legal effect. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)