IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15010 of 2009 1. BIJAY BAHADUR SINGH S/O LATE BHOLA SINGH R/OVILL AKHATWARA, P.S. HATHOURI, DISTT- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SUB- DIVISIONAL OFFICER ROSHRA, SAMASTIPUR 5. SUPPLY OFFICER CUM INSPECTOR SHIVAJEE NAGAR, BLOCK SHIWAJEE NAGAR, ROSHRA, SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 4.05.2010 The petitioner was a dealer under Public Distribution System and was granted licence under the Bihar Public Distribution Licensing Orders, 2007 which is issued under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government. For certain derelictions, a show-cause was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed his show-cause and on perusing the same by order dated 13.08.2008, the licence of the petitioner was suspended. The order would show that while the licence was under suspended after rejecting the show-cause, a further show-cause was issued to the petitioner for cancellation of his licence on the same very allegations. Now, by Annexure-6, the show-cause having been rejected, his licence was cancelled by order dated 15.07.2009. The petitioner has come to this Court challenging the order dated 15.07.2009 on the ground that the order is 2 wholly without jurisdiction and void ab intio. Learned counsel for the State submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as the alternative remedy in the shape of appeal is available. In my view, the objection by the State is not sustainable for the reasons that one of the well known exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy is where the order is wholly without jurisdiction, which is present in the impugned order dated 15.07.2009 which is not permissible in law. The Central Government framed the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 authorizing the State Government to frame orders for licensing of dealers under Public Distribution System. In exercise of powers delegated, the State Government has issued the Bihar Public Distribution System Licensing Orders, 2007 by notification no. GSR I dated 20.02.2007. The power to take punitive action is contained in clause 7 of this Order. A reference to clause 7 of this Order would show that now for any dereliction, the licensing authority has a choice of punishment. It may be that either after granting opportunity of show-cause, he can suspend the licence or cancel the licence. 3 It does not provide that first the licence can be suspended and then after another show-cause for the same dereliction it can be cancelled. That would amount to double jeopardy which is not permissible either in the statute or by law. Further, the order provides that suspension would continue only for 90 days. Thus, in my view, there may be a minor punishment or a major punishment, but both punishments cannot be imposed. Thus, since the licence having been suspended after rejecting the show-cause, the licensing authority had no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter of cancellation of licence and if so, the order of cancellation of licence, as contained in Annexure-6 dated 15.07.2009, is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio and accordingly set aside and the writ petition is allowed. V.K. Pandey (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)