IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19897 of 2010 1. Budhlal Prasad S/O Late Ramswarup Paswan R/O Vill.- Singhapur, Post- Madhopur, P.S.- Tekari, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Gaya 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tekari, Distt.- Gaya 5. The District Supply Officer, Distt.- Gaya 6. The Block Supply Officer, Tekari, Distt.- Gaya ----------------- 4. 29.8.2011. Heard Mr. Kalikant Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sandip Singh, learned Assisting Counsel to G.P.9 for the State. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4.3.2010 passed by the respondent no.2 Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya in Appeal No.101 of 2008 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 30.4.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer cum Licensing Authority, Gaya under Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Order’), whereby the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner’s case, in brief, is that pursuant to certain allegations set out against 2 the petitioner, a show cause was asked by the Licensing Authority, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya vide memo no.7 dated 5.1.2007 requiring him to respond within a week. The petitioner submitted his reply on 15.1.2007 responding to the allegations set out in the show cause notice. The Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated on 9.2.2007, passed an order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner. The order is placed at Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It so appears that subsequently, again the matter was got inquired into by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya through the Block Supply Officer, Tekari who submitted a report holding the charges levelled against the petitioner as not correct. In view of the said report, the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, Gaya vide letter dated 29.11.2007 placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, recommended his case before the District Level Selection Committee, Gaya for revocation of suspension of the licence. It is a different matter that even otherwise, by passage of time, the order of suspension had already exhausted itself and 3 required no revocation in terms of Clause 7(v) of the Order notified by the State of Bihar vide GSR No.01 dated 20.2.2007 which inter alia provides that a licence of any dealer can be suspended for a maximum period of 90 days. The period of 90 days having expired on or before 9.5.2007, there was no occasion for the Sub Divisional Officer to have sought revocation of the suspension of the petitioners’ licence vide his letter dated 29.11.2007 issued six months thereafter. The ‘District Level Selection Committee, without appreciating the legal position in its meeting dated 30.3.2008, considered and rejected the recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari for revocation of the suspension of the licence and instead took a decision for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. It is again a different matter that the District Level Selection Committee was not competent to take such a decision in terms of the provisions of the Order. Nevertheless, the licensing authority the Sub Divisional Officer, Tekari, proceeded mechanically on the basis of the directions issued by the District Level Selection Committee to cancel the licence of the 4 petitioner vide order passed on 30.4.2008 as contained in Annexure-5 to writ petition and this time without asking any show cause from the petitioner and without giving any opportunity of hearing as required under Clause 7(iv) of the Order. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Gaya was also dismissed by order dated 4.3.2010 placed at Annexure-6 and hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a very short argument in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Pradhuman Choudhary & ors Vs. The State of Bihar) reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 178. He submits that once an order of suspension of the licence had already been issued by the licensing authority vide order passed on 9.2.2007, in purported exercise of powers vested in him under the provisions of Clause 7(ii) of the Order, the authority under the Order, could not have proceeded to impose a second punishment for the same offence and order for the cancellation of the licence. He submits that the issue stands settled by the judgment as rendered in the case of Pradhuman Choudhary & Ors Vs. State of Bihar (supra). It is contended that apart from the 5 aforesaid settled position, the order impugned is also unsustainable in view of the violation of Clause 7(iv) of the Order inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. He thus submits that in view of the aforementioned circumstance, the orders impugned can not be sustained. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents sworn by the Block Supply Officer, Tekari who has simply reiterated the position as emanating from the impugned orders placed at Annexure-5 and 6 of the writ petition. The facts of the case are not in dispute. In fact, there was no occasion for the Licensing Authority to have sought revocation of the licence of the petitioner from the District Level Selection Committee, Gaya, in purported compliance Clause 7(v) of the Order, for the reasons that the order of suspension had already exhausted itself and lost its force on or before 9.5.2007. The recommendation dated 29.11.2007 was unwarranted and was not required and the licence of the petitioner stood restored on 9.5.2007 itself by operation of law. 6 For the reasons aforesaid and in view of the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Pradhuman Choudhary (supra), the orders impugned in the writ petition can not be sustained. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders placed at Annexures-5 and 6 of the writ petition are quashed and set aside. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.)