IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5284 of 2010 1. DASHARATH PRASAD S/O LATE BARHO MAHTO R/O VILL.- DIH-KUSUMBHA, P.S.- DIH KUSUMBHA, P.S.- KARMA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER SHEIKHPURA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GHAT KUSUMBHA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER GHAT KUSUMBHA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA ----------- 3. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2009 suspending his Public Distribution System licence on the ground of institution of a First Information Report. Learned counsel submits that under Rule 7(III) of the Bihar Fair Shops Distribution Order, 2007, the license can be suspended only if the First Information Report has been lodged under the Essential Commodities Act. The report against the petitioner being under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Penal Code, there is no justification for continued suspension. Explaining the aspect of delay in challenging the order of suspension nearly one year eight months later on 26.8.2010 in the writ application it is submitted that the same rule provides for attachment of the agency of the petitioner with another shop. Therefore, there is no 2 difficulty in restoration of his dealership if this Court were to hold that the suspension on the aforesaid ground was not sustainable. This Court today in C.W.J.C. No. 18692 of 2010 has had occasion to consider a similar matter wherein it has been noticed that if charges were to be framed under the Essential Commodities Act, Rule 7(III) shall then have its application with full force. The present writ application has to be allowed in light of that discussion in similar terms. But there is another aspect of the matter. License was suspended on 24.12.2008. The petitioner has questioned it by this writ application on 26.8.2010. If during this interval the respondents have advertised the dealership held by the petitioner earlier and have appointed a new dealer, quite obviously the petitioner has a very serious question to answer in so far as the aspect of delay is concerned. Any third party right having been created in the meantime when the petitioner may have failed to move the Court in time, in that event, the writ application shall be deemed to be dismissed. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.) 3