IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11095 of 2008 RAJIA KHATOON WIFE OF JAWED ANWAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-LOGWA, P.O.SANKOLA, POLICE STATION- ABADPUR, DISTRICT-KATIHAR. …….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KATIHAR. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BARSOI, KATIHAR. 5. MARKET OFFICER, BLOCK BARSOI, KATIHAR. 6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BLOCK, BARSOI, DISTRICT- KATIHAR. …..RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.11229 of 2009 SUBODH RAVI DAS, S/O LATE CHULAHI RAVI DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DHUSAR TIKA PATTI, PANCHAYAT RUPAULI, P.TIKAPATTI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. …….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA. 3. THE S.D.O. PURNEA. …..RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.157 of 2010 RAM NARESH YADAV S/O SRI MURAT SINGH R/O VILL- POTHAI, P.S- PUNPUN, DISTT- PATNA. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CONTROLLER, PATNA. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MASAURHI BLOCK, DISTT- PATNA. 3. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, MASAURHI BLOCK, DISTT- PATNA. …. RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.5448 of 2010 JAY RAM SINGH S/O GORAKH NATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE - KARISATH , P.O -KARISATH, P.S - UDWANTNAGAR,O.P - GAJRAJGANJ, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR. …PETITIOENR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT , GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. - 2 - 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOJPUR, ARA. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, TOWN, ARA. 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOILWAR, DISTRICT- ARA. 6. THE SUPPLY INSPECTOR, UDWANTNAGAR, DISTRICT- ARA. …..RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.6046 of 2010 RAM SWAROOP CHOUDHARY S/O LATE JAGAN CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- NAUGARH, PANCHAYAT RAMPUR, P.S.- AMAS, DISTT.- GAYA. ….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SHERGHATI SUB DIVISION, GAYA. 5. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA. 6. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, AMAS, GAYA. ….RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.8569 of 2010 RAM BHAWAN SINGH S/O LATE KESHAV YADAV R/O VILL.- BARAHARA, P.S.- KAKO, DISTT.- JEHANABAD. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KAKO, JEHANABAD. 6. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, JEHANABAD. 7. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, KAKO, JEHANABAD. ……RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.12919 of 2010 KAILASH YADAV SON OF SHRIRAM YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MEHANDI, P.S. TIKAPATTI, DISTRICT-PURNEA. ……PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHAMDAHA. 4. THE SUPPLY INSPECTOR, RUPAULI. - 3 - …….RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.13591 of 2010 BHUSHAN PASWAN, S/O LATE DARO PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PAKARI BARAWAN, P.S. PAKARI BARAWAN, BLOCK-PAKARI BARAWAN, DISTRICT-NAWADA. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLY DEPARTMENT NEW SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NAWADA. 7. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, NAWADA. 8. ASSISTANT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, NAWADA. 9. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, KAKO, NAWADA. …..RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.16090 of 2009 SURENDRA PASWAN S/O LATE AAURI PASWAN, R/O VILL- RAJPUR, P.S- MADHEPURA, DISTT- MADHEPURA. …..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, MADHEPURA. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADHEPURA. ……RESPONDENTS. With CWJC No.16128 of 2009 VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE RAM BABU, R/O VILL- NAYA TOLA MADHOPUR, P.S-BAKHTIYARPUR, DISTT- PATNA. …..PETITIOER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BARH, PATNA 3. ASSISTANT DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, BAKHTIYARPUR, PATNA 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BRAHMPUR, BAKHTIYARPUR, PATNA. …. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 26.08.2010 All these cases have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as in all of them the petitioners have - 4 - challenged the orders of cancellation of their respective licences for running fair price shops on the same grounds on which their respective licences had been earlier suspended by the authorities concerned. 2. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in all the aforesaid cases is that a punishment of suspension of licence has already been given to them and hence for the same offence another punishment of cancellation of their licences cannot be legally given to them by the authorities concerned in view of the provisions of the Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as `the Central Control Order of 2001’ for the sake of brevity) followed by the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, notified vide G.S.R. 1 dated 20.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Control Order of 2001 for the sake of brevity). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in all the aforesaid cases vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the licences were granted to the petitioners under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity) and hence the action for suspension/cancellation of such licences would be governed only by its provisions. Relying upon Clause 11 - 5 - of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984, it was claimed that the suspension of licences of the petitioners were merely interim measures during the proceeding for cancellation of such licences and hence there was no bar in cancelling the licence of a licensee, which had already been suspended. He further claimed that the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 was concerned with the licensing matter, whereas, Central Control Order of 2001 and Bihar Control Order of 2001 were with respect to Public Distribution System and the latter cannot legally govern the former. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a decision of the Single Bench of this Court in case of Punsraj Begawani & another vs. The State of Bihar & another, reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 1150. Finally learned counsel for the respondents stated that the statutory appeal has been provided under Clause 28 of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 as well as under Clause 15 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 and hence these writ petitions are not maintainable on that score also. 4. Similar matters have been considered vide order dated 14.07.2010 by this Court in a batch of cases in case of Pradhuman Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 6966 of 2008) and analogous cases, in which it has been specifically held that after coming into force of the Bihar Control Order of 2001, the provisions of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 would not be applicable to the fair price shops under the Public Distribution System and for all practical purposes, the provisions - 6 - of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 would be applicable. It has also been held that after coming into force of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 it was for the authorities to select either to suspend the licences of the petitioners or to cancel them at the very initial stage. Once the punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authorities for the petitioners, there was no occasion or jurisdiction for them to pass any further order of punishment for the same offence against the petitioners, namely cancellation. Thus the impugned orders of the respondents-authorities canceling licences of the petitioners after 2007 apart from being illegal and perverse, are also absolutely without jurisdiction and hence they cannot be legally allowed to stand. 5. In the light of the aforesaid special circumstances as well as the aforesaid decision of this Court and the specific provisions of law as discussed above, the respective orders of the respondents-authorities cancelling licences of the petitioners, which are under challenge in the above-mentioned writ petitions, are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the orders of the authorities regarding suspension of the licences of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the respective orders of suspension of the licences of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. 6. With the aforesaid directions/observations, all the above-mentioned writ petitions are allowed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)