IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18659 of 2008 BINOD KUMAR son of Bishwanath Prasad, resident of Akhara Ghat Road, Muzaffarpur Town, P.S. Nagar,District-Muzaffarpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. District Agriculture Officer, Sheohar. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K.Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. D.N.Tiwari For the State : J.C. to AAG-7. - --- 2 23.1.2009 Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 5, the order of the District Agriculture Officer, Sheohar by which he has once again suspended the certificate of registration for wholesale dealing in Fertilizer being Certificate No. 1F/2008, as granted to the petitioner. Without going into the fact, reading the impugned order (Annexure 5) itself, in my view, the order cannot be sustained. The order itself clearly states that finding discrepancies in business of the petitioner, an FIR was lodged being Sheohar P.S.Case no. 116 of 2008. It is not in dispute that the FIR was lodged on 14.10.2008. Pursuant to FIR being lodged , on 15.10.2008 petitioner‟s certificate of registration for dealing in Fertilizer was suspended by the District Agriculture Officer, Sheohar and a show cause notice was issued. Order itself notices that show cause was duly filed by the petitioner, which was considered and thereafter the suspension order was recalled. The order of recall is dated 4.11.2008 and is contained in Annexure 4. Now, it is stated that all over again the same story is repeated for the same order and is said that some discrepancy in some paper , as filed along with show cause has been sought and as such once again the certificate of registration is being suspended and 2 the petitioner has been directed to rectify the defect and resubmit. As to how what are the defects and what are the documents have not been mentioned in the order. It is well settled that the order suspending the right to do business in Fertilizer is a quasi judicial order. It cannot be supplemented and explained by way of affidavit or otherwise at a later stage. It must be a speaking order. It is also well established that once on a certain set of fact ,a power is exercised then the same cannot be revived unless power to revive is conferred on the specified authority. Here, I am of the view, the order cannot be sustained. First considering the FIR and the allegation, the certificate of registration of petitioner was suspended and a show cause issued. Considering the show cause, the suspension was revoked. Now, the same show cause is being reconsidered and “some” discrepancies in „some‟ paper are alleged. This has now been made a fresh ground for suspending the certificate of registration. In my view, such an action is impermissible . It is clear an abuse of statutory authority. There cannot be repeated suspension of business substantially for the same cause. In that view of the matter,p with the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure 5, is thus found to be unsustainable and is set aside as such. The writ petition is allowed. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the District Agriculture Officer, Sheohar through the Collector-cum-District 3 Magistrate, Sheohar at the cost of the petitioner. SINGH (Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.)