IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5636 of 2008 Bachu Singh, son of Sri Bhubneshwar Singh, village Bhata Bigha, PS Haspura, District Aurangabad – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Dist. Magistrate, Aurangabad 3) The S.D.O. Daudnagar, Aurangabad. 4) The Supply Inspector, Haspura Block, Aurangabad – Respondents. 6 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 2.12.2006 contained in Annexure 3 passed by the Subdivisional Officer, Daudnagar as well as the order, dated 29.11.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 17/2006 contained in Annexure 4. There are two grounds for challenging the impugned orders. It is firstly contended that the orders cancelling the petitioner’s license has been issued under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 for violation of sections 10 and 11. The 1984 Unification Order was replaced by the Public Distribution System (control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government for the purpose of maintaining supply and availability and distribution of the essential commodities under the public distribution system. The 2001 Order was published in the official gazette on 31.8.2001. Under section 10 of the said Order, the State Government subsequently published the authority who could search a shop and seize the goods etc. relating to the stock of essential commodities by a gazette notification issued on 2 25.5.2006. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s shop was searched on 25.5.2006 wherein the Supply Inspector who was duly appointed authority under the 1984 Order, as well as the present notification found that the petitioner’s shop was closed ,and that the display board indicating the price of the items was missing. The petitioner was given liberty to produce his books and documents relating to the stock which he failed to so. In any event this court rejects the plea of the petitioner that the Supply Inspector did not have the power of seizure on the ground that on the day on which the search was conducted, the Supply Oficer was already clothes with the power to search and seize the premises of P.D.S. dealers and the like. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is more meaningful. It has been submitted that after the 2001 Order, the State Government was required to issue a notification with respect to the procedure for suspension / cancellation of the license in cases where there was a violation of terms and conditions regulating the sale and distribution of the essential commodities. This notification was issued vide GSR 1, dated 20.2.2007 under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act and was published on 20.2.2007. In view of the fact that the notification describing the manner of suspension and cancellation was issued on 20.2.2007, there is an anomaly in the procedure by which the petitioner’s license has been cancelled. As stated earlier it was cancelled on 2.12.2006. During that point of time the 1984 Unification Order had already lapsed and the 2001 Order had 3 come into existence. However, in the interregnum period between 31.8.2001 to 20.2.2007, there was no provision prescribed for suspending or cancelling the license of P.D.S. dealers. In the circumstances the impugned orders issued on 2.12.2006 purportedly passed under the 1984 Unification Order could not be passed for the reasons indicated above and as such this court has no option but to quash the order impugned contained in Annexure 3 and the appellate order contained in Annexure 4. While quashing the orders contained in Annexures 3 and 4, liberty in given to the concerned authority to start a fresh proceeding for cancellation under the 2001 Orders and the notification issued vide GSR 1, dated 20.2.2007 relating to suspension and cancellation of the license. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)