IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14237 of 2010 Rambadan Singh S/O Ram Bilash Singh R/O Vill.- Jethian, P.S.- Atri, Distt.- Gaya Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Food & Civil Supply Department, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya 3. The District Supply Officer, Block Atri, Distt.- Gaya 4. The Block Supply Officer, Block Mohra, Distt.- Gaya --------------------- 05/ 20.09.2011 Heard Mr. D.N. Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Umesh Kumar, Assisting counsel to G.P. 1 for the State. The writ petition has been filed questioning the order dated 19.7.2008 as contained in Memo No. 224, placed at Annexure-2 whereby the license of the petitioner was suspended together with the order dated 24.7.2010 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya, whereby the license of the petitioner has subsequently been cancelled on grounds of institution of vigilance case arising from Vigilance Case No. 39 of 2008. Facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner is a Dealer under the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 as notified by the State of Bihar through G.S.R. No. 1 dated 20.2.2007. By reason of certain complaints set out against the petitioner leading to institution of a Vigilance Case No. 39 of 2008, his license was initially suspended under order dated 19.7.2008 placed at Annexure-2 to the writ petition by the Sub- 2 Divisional Officer, Neemchak, Bathani, Gaya. The said order of suspension would have exhausted itself upon expiry of the period of 90 days in terms of the provision as contained in Clause 7(V) of the Order but in view of the charges set out against the petitioner under which the license was suspended i.e. the institution of a vigilance case, the suspension continued. While the license of the P.D.S. shop was suspended, a second order came to be passed on 24.7.2010 placed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, whereby the license of the petitioner along with some others was cancelled in view of the cancellation of the Vigilance Case No. 39 of 2008. It is in these circumstances that the present writ petition came to be filed questioning the exercise of power by the licensing authority in cancelling the license on grounds of institution of a vigilance case. It is the contention of the petitioner that the cancellation order is in the teeth of the statutory provision governing the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon Clause 7(iii) of the Order submits that it is only in circumstances where an F.I.R. is instituted for violation of any order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act that a license of the Dealer can either be kept under suspension or be cancelled. It is contended that in absence of either of the prerequisites to such cancellation and in view of the clear position that the license has been cancelled by reason of institution of a vigilance case and not any case instituted for violation of any order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, the same is not sustainable. 3 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents and in which this position is not disputed rather the respondents do agree that it is on account of certain charges against the petitioner and some others that a vigilance case was instituted and which is yet pending for consideration and it is in this background that the license of the petitioner after being initially suspended had subsequently been cancelled. . Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court is under no doubt that the writ petition is fit to be allowed. As already noted hereinabove the license of the petitioner was initially suspended by order dated 19.7.2008 and by operation of law as provided under Clause 7(v) of the Order, the license of the petitioner would have revived on or before 19.10.2008 but by reason of the institution of the criminal case it remained under suspension and had subsequently been cancelled by the impugned order dated 24.7.2010 as contained in Annexure-4. The cancellation of the license is not on any other ground but institution of a vigilance case which is yet to be adjudicated upon. Clause 7(ii) of the Order does not confer any jurisdiction on the licensing authority to either suspend or to cancel the license of the petitioner on grounds of institution of vigilance case save and except if the charges pertain to violation of any Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has been found guilty of violation of any order issued under Section 3 of the said Act. 4 That being the position, the order of suspension as contained in Annexure-2 together with the order of cancellation of license of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-4 cannot be upheld and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)