IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13813 of 2008 SHEO KUMAR PASWAN SON OF SITA RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAGANKURA P.S.- SAKURABAD GRAM PANCHAYAT UCHITA, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD ------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING AUTHORITY, JEHANABAD 4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, RANI FARIDPUR BLOCK, P.S. SAKURABAD, DISTRICT-JEHANABAD ---------------Respondents . with CWJC No.18276 of 2009 1. SURENDRA PRASAD S/O HIRA SAH R/O VILL.- DAHAR, AT PRESENT VILL.- KARAR, P.O.- ADHAURA, P.S.- ADHAURA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABHUA ------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHABUA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-BHABUA DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA 4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER ADHAURA, BLOCK-ADHAURA, DISTT.- KAIMUR AT BHABUA ---------------Respondents with CWJC No.12172 of 2010 1. VISHWNATH SARDAR S/O LATE CHULAI SARDAR R/O VILL CHARNAI, P.S.CHATTAPUR, P.O. DISTT-SUPAUL -------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR SUPAUL 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL ------------Respondents ----------- 2. 07.09.2010 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order of cancellation of his licence for running fair price shop on the same grounds on which his licence had been 2 earlier suspended by the authorities concerned. 2. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that a punishment of suspension of licence has already been given to him and hence for the same offence another punishment of cancellation of his licence cannot be legally given to him 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 vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the licence was 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 licence would be governed only by its provisions. Relying upon Clause 11 of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984, it was claimed that the suspension of licence of the petitioners were merely interim measures during the proceeding for cancellation of such licence and hence there was no bar in cancelling the licence of a licensee, which had already been 3 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 shop under the Public Distribution System and for all practical purposes, the provisions 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 licence of the petitioners or to cancel it at the very initial stage. Once the punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authorities for 4 the petitioners, there was no occasion or jurisdiction for him to pass any further order of punishment for the same offence against the petitioners, namely cancellation. Thus the impugned order of the respondents-authorities cancelling licence of the petitioners after 2007 apart from being illegal and perverse, is also absolutely without jurisdiction and hence it cannot be legally allowed to stand. 5. This aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the appellate authority in his impugned appellate order by which the appeal of the petitioners were rejected. Hence the said appellate order also cannot be legally allowed to stand. 6. 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, order of the respondents- authorities cancelling licence of the petitioners and upholding the cancellation in appeal which are under challenge in this writ petition are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the order of the authorities regarding suspension of the licence of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension; whereafter the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. 7. With the aforesaid directions /observations, these writ petitions are allowed. Anand Kr. ( S. N. Hussain, J.)