IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4719 of 2009 Raj Kumar Sethi, S/o- Late Madanlal Sethi, Resident of Koieripurawa, Buxar, P.S. Buxar Town, District-Buxar. ….. Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. ….. Respondents. --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N. Tiwari. For the State : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, A.C. to G.A.-7. ------------- 03 17.04.2009 The petitioner is a fair price dealer under the public distribution system. He has a licence for that purpose being Licence No. 173 of 2007. Petitioner also has s sweet shop known as Makhanbhog Mishthan Bhandar at Buxar. The premises of the sweet shop was inspected by the Supply Inspector, who found two empty domestic gas cylinders and two domestic gas cylinders in use. He found to Jeerycanes containing 50 litres of kerosene oil each. Accordingly, a first information report was lodged giving rise to Buxar Town P.S. Case No. 243 of 2008 dated 31.10.2008 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for using unauthorizedly domestic gas cylinders and being unauthorized possession of kerosene oil. By impugned order dated 01.11.2008, the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar has cancelled the petitioner’s licence of fair price shop under the public distribution system, on the solitary ground that there is a case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, as against the petitioner. Mr. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing in 2 support of the writ petition submits that the Sub-divisional Officer, the Licensing Authority wrongly usurped jurisdiction in the matter. He submits that there is no F.I.R. against the petitioner in the capacity of a fair price shop dealer in relation to public distribution system. The F.I.R. read as whole only refers to unauthorized possession of uses of domestic gas cylinder and kerosene oil. It does not even whisper anything about public distribution system or the fair price shop of the petitioner, as such, the Sub-divisional Officer could not have assume jurisdiction in the matter and suspended the petitioner’s licence. In order to appreciate the submission one will have to refer Clause 7 of the Bihar Fair Price Dealer Licensing Order, 2007, which is quoted hereunder:- Clause 7. Suspension and Cancellation of the Licence:- (i) ….. (ii) ….. (iii) If F.I.R. is lodged against FPS dealers for contravention of an order issued under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, their licence shall be suspended till the matter is pending before the Court of law. (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. 3 (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. The reference to the aforesaid provision would show that if in relation to a dealer under the public distribution system and in relation to his dealings, as such, a first information report is lodged then so long as the criminal proceedings remain pending his licence was remain suspended. In other case, before suspension show cause is necessary and even then suspension cannot exceed 90 days. Thus, there are two distinct category of suspension (1) an automatic suspension of lodging an F.I.R. in relation to dealings of P.D.S. dealer and (2) suspension for a maximum of 90 days after issuance of show cause notice. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there was no F.I.R. against the petitioner in the capacity of a dealer under the public distribution system. It was the sweet shop of the petitioner that was inspected. In the entire F.I.R. there is no whisper with regard to petitioner being a dealer under public distribution system. Thus, the F.I.R. cannot be said to be in relation to petitioner, as a dealer under the 4 public distribution system, that being so, the Clause 7 (iii) of the Order aforesaid would not come into play. As a consequence thereof, the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar cannot be sustained and is quashed accordingly. The writ petition is allowed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)