IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14706 of 2009 PRAMOD KUMAR S/O SRI SURAJ PASWAN VILL- SHAHDULLAHPUR, P.S. LALGANJ, DISTT. VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, PRESENTLY A P.D.S. DEALER (UNDER SUSPENSION) OF PANCHAYAT SHAHDULLAHPUR, PRAKHAND LALGANJ, DISTT. VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. SRI AMARNATH, MARKETING OFFICER null FOOD & CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 5. THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DISTRICT LEVEL SELECTION COMMITTEE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAJIPUR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. THE DISTRICT MANAGER STATE FOOD CORPORATION, DISTT. VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 8. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER LALGANJ, DISTT. VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ----------- 02. 10.12.2009 Petitioner is a dealer under Public Distribution System having Licence No. 05/07 granted by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Hajipur. For certain dereliction petitioner was asked to show cause and his licence was suspended. He was then issued a second show cause. Petitioner showed cause. Thereafter considering the second sow cause, by the impugned order dated 26.08.2009 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur by his order as contained in Annexure-5 has now cancelled the licence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said action on three grounds. Firstly he submits that once the licence had been suspended then for the same 2 dereliction it can not be cancelled. He then submitted that even otherwise the impugned order is a non-speaking order and as such is in violation of principle of natural justice and is liable to be set aside as such. Learned counsel has referred to Clause-7 of the Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 as issued by the State Government under the provisions of the Public Distribution System(Control) Order, 2001. relevant provision of Clause 7(ii), (iv), (v) are quoted hereunder. (ii) if any licensee contravenes the provision, terms of the licence, duties responsibilities and order of State Government then the Licensing Authority shall suspend/canceled the licence by a written order, (iv) It shall be necessary to ask show cause by the Licensing Authority to licensee before suspending licence. Licensee will be given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation, (v) Suspension of licence shall be for a maximum period of ninety days. In the mean time records relating to suspension of licence should be sent to the District Level Selection Committee within a fortnight from the date of suspension of licence. The Selection Committee after due enquiry shall recommend for revocation of suspension the Licensing Authority shall act accordingly. From the aforesaid provision, it would be seen that suspension or cancellation is a measure of punishment and are in alternative. Thus if the authority once chose to 3 suspend instead of cancelling licence then for the same act they can not proceed to cancel the licence. Once punishment is given, the power to punish for the same dereliction end. Thus as admittedly petitioner’s licence was earlier suspended for the same dereliction and on basis of a second show cause it is being cancelled, the second proceedings for cancellation is wholly without jurisdiction, not contemplated by the order aforesaid and thus can not be sustained. The order of cancellation thus has to be set aside. Even though the writ petition is being allowed on this short issue itself, I may mention that even though the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer cancelling the licence is a long order, it is a non-speaking order. It does not give reasons as to what was the defence of the petitioner and why the defence could not be accepted. Reasons are linked between the facts found and the decision taken here, the order shows the facts and the decision but there are no links between the two. In view of the aforesaid, I am left with no option but to quash the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The writ application stands allowed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)