IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14186 of 2009 1. GAURI KANT SAH S/O LATE KAPUR CHAND SAH VILL-GANDAUR, P;O- BAGHWA, P.S- JALAI (MAHISHI), DISTT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD, SUPPLY AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE S.D.O SADAR SAHARSA, DISTT- SAHARSA W I T H CWJC No 14244 of 2009 1. BUCHCHI CHOUDHARY S/O LATE LAXMIKANT CHOUDHARY VILL- GANDAUR, P.O. BAGHWA, P.S. JALAI (MAHISHI), DISTT. SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD, SUPPLY AND COMMERCE DEPTT., OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE S.D.O. SADAR SAHARSA, DISTT. SAHARSA ----------- 2 11.11.2009 As the basic facts are the same, the two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners are dealers under the Public Distribution System and for certain derelictions, they were issued notice against proposed suspension of their licences. While the proceeding was pending, there were more and more allegations boring in. Accordingly, without waiting for the response, by Annexure-4 being order dated 25th July 2008, the licences of the petitioners were suspended. In the said notice itself, various allegations were noted and in the end, while communicating this order to the petitioners, it was specifically stated that the petitioners should show cause against all these allegations as to why their licences should not be cancelled. Petitioners filed their detailed show cause and upon consideration thereof, their licences have now been cancelled by order as communicated under Memo dated 18.06.2009 by the Subdivisional Officer, Sadar Saharsa. 2 Petitioners challenge that the suspension could not be more than 90 days and once suspension was ordered, there could not be a cancellation proceeding. For the said proposition, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ramnath Paswan –Versus- State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2009 (3) PLJR 513. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the judgment, in my view, the writ petitions cannot be entertained. Petitioners must prefer appeal against an order of cancellation. The reason for this is that as held in the case of Ramnath Paswan (supra) by this Court, the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 are not applicable after the Bihar Fair Price Shop Dealers Order, 2007 has come into force. The power to order interim suspension, as was contained in clause 11 (2) of the Unification Order, is no more available to the licensing authority. In terms of Clause 7 of the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order 2007, suspension and cancellation are contemplated only by way of final punishment and that too after show cause notice is issued. Thus, in the present case, it would be seen that the order of suspension, as per Annexure-4, was clearly not in violation of the statutory provisions and invalid. There was no suspension by way of punishment. That being the position, the question of suspension standing revoked on expiry of 90 days does not apply. Cancellation has now been done admittedly after due notice to the petitioners. That cannot be said procedurally invalid 3 however wrong on fact it may be otherwise. The remedy of the petitioners is now to prefer appeal against the said order before the appellate authority that is the District Magistrate who, it is expected on such appeal filed, would admit the appeal after condoning delay and decide the same on merits without being prejudiced by this Court’s order in any manner within a period of three months from the date the appeal is filed. With these observations and directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)