IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14703 of 2009 1. PAPPU KUMAR SINGH S/O AWADH BIHARI SINGH VILL+P.O. MAJHARIYAN, P.S. BUXAR (INDUSTRIAL), DISTT. BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR BUXAR 4. THE S.D.O. BUXAR 5. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER BUXAR 6. SUPPLY INSPECTOR TOWN, BUXAR ----------- 2 27.11.2009 Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself as a pure question of law arises. The petitioner is a dealer under Public Distribution System and has a licence as such granted by the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. For certain dereliction , a show cause notice was issued to him under memo no. 672 dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure 1) asking him to show cause why his licence should not be cancelled. Petitioner filed his show cause and thereafter he has been visited by the impugned order , as contained in memo no. 128, dated 9.6.2009. By the impugned order, not accepting his defence as per his show cause, his licence has been suspended. Further he has been asked to submit show cause why licence should not be cancelled. Petitioner’s grievances are two folds. Firstly, once after issuing show cause his licence has been suspended by way of punishment but such suspension cannot operate beyond 90 days and secondly, once for a dereliction the licensing authority chose to suspend the licence after show cause, he cannot then again issue notice for cancellation of the 2 licence. In my view, the writ petition must succeed on both counts. Unlike the provision of the Bihar Trade Article (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 in which a provision was there in the shape of clause 11, which provided interim suspension pending cancellation of licences, under the present Order there is no such provision. In 2001, the central Government enacted public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 under which power was delegated to the State Government to frame Order for licensing dealers under Public Distribution System. In 2007, the State Government framed Order commonly known as Public Distribution System licensing Order, 2007 and clause 7 thereof deals with suspension and revocation .Clause 7 specifically lays down that if there is a dereliction then licence can be suspended by the licensing authority after issuance of notice. Licence can either be suspended or cancelled by the licensing authority. Thus, it is clear that suspension of licence can only be done after a notice and not by way of interim measure as under the Unification Order. Thus, two alternative punishment can be there- either suspension after show cause being issued or cancellation after show cause being issued. Once that selection is made by the licensing authority, he chooses only to suspend the licence. Then clause 7(v) specifically provides that the suspension so made cannot continue beyond 90 days. Thus, the punishment of suspension is limited to the period of 90 days within which a report has to be sent to the District Committee which could 3 order revocation of suspension at an early date. Thus, the statutory provisions are clear. Once the licence of the petitioner was suspended after show cause by order dated 9.6.2009 it ceased to operate on expiry of 90 days. Once it ceased to operate with effect from September, 2009, no proceeding for cancellation on the same very issue would be taken up nor licence be cancelled. In view of the law aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of suspension of petitioner’s licence has spent its force and does not operate any more and there cannot be a cancellation proceeding on the same set of allegation. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)