IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8378 of 2011 Shiv Narayan Thakur, son of Late Laturi Thakur, a resident of Village & P.O. Dheema, Police Station-Banmankhi, District- Purnea. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, District-Purnea. 3. The Block Supply Officer, Banmankhi Block, District- Purnea. …………Respondents. For the petitioner :- Mr. R. C. Thakur, Advocate. Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents:- 1. Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate of A.C. 2. 2. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, A.C. to A.A.G. 2. ----------- 2. 11. 05. 2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This is a petition for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing the order dated 04. 09. 2010 by which licence of kerosene oil of the petitioner has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the Sub-divisional Officer by order dated 08. 06. 2010 vide Annexure-2 to this petition cancelled the licence of the petitioner for certain irregularities and violation of Unification order as found during inspection of the shop by the S.D.O. for non-displaying the price list in the stock register etc. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 2 in view provisions of the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) order, 2001 and notification of G.S.R. No. 1 20. 02. 2007, the Bihar Control order could not applicable and provision of Bihar Control order would be applicable and under Bihar Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001, it is for the authority to select either to suspend the licence or to dismiss the licence at the very initial stage and once punishment of suspension has been chosen then order of cancellation is not sustainable and has placed reliance in decision reported in 2010 (4) PLJR at page 178 Praduman Choudhary Vrs. State of Bihar as well as decision reported in 2011 (4) page202 Prabhunath Rai Vrs. State of Bihar as well as decision reported in 2011 (2) BBCJ page 286. 5. Learned counsel for the State however, opposed the submission and submits that order of cancellation has been passed within ninety days of the order of suspension. 6. However, on the respective submissions, the question for consideration whether impugned order is sustainable. 7. From perusal of the order and the respective 3 submission of the parties it is apparent that the petitioner was a licencee and his licence was suspended by order dated 08. 06. 2010 for the alleged irregularities. However, subsequently his licence was cancelled after giving opportunity to file show cause by impugned order dated 04. 09. 2010, and grievance of the petitioner that once the punishment of suspension is recorded against the petitioner, the authority concern cannot proceed to cancel the licence as it amount double punishment. 8. However, in the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner mentioned above and has held as follows; “ that it was for the authorities to select either to suspend the licences of the petitioners or to cancel them at the very initial stage. Once the punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authorities for the petitioners, there was no occasion or jurisdiction for them to pass any further order of punishment, for the same offence against the petitioner”. 9. Hence, under the facts and circumstances, order of suspension passed earlier against the petitioner for alleged irregularities and hence any further punishment of 4 cancelling the licence of the petitioner is apparently illegal and perverse and without jurisdiction and the same has been expressed in decision reported as mentioned above. 10. Hence, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and legal position as mentioned above and decision relied by the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)