IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.180 of 2010 Phekan Paswan S/o Sri Ramprit Paswan, R/o Vill- Sarai, P.O- Madhupur, Distt- Samastipur. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner, Department Of Food and Consumer Protection, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Department Of Food and Consumer Protection, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Samastipur. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer-Cum- Licensing Authority, Patori, Samastipur. 5. The Assistant District Supply Officer, Patori, Samastipur 6. The Block Supply Officer, Patori, Samastipur. ……… Respondents. ----------- 2. 20-09-2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. In this case, the petitioner has challenged order of cancellation of his Fair Price Shop Licence No. 01/01 under the Provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity) due to the pendency of criminal proceeding against him for offences punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is Fair Price Shop owner under the Public Distribution System for which Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Central Control Order of 2001’ for the sake of brevity) was published on 31.08.2001 and from that day, it came into effect. Following the Central Government Order, the State Government also provided Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department, Public Distribution System (Control) 2 Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar Control Order of 2001 for the sake of brevity). Clause 1 of the said Order specifically provided that under the provision of the Order of 1984 will not be applicable to Fair Price Shops under the Public Distribution System and hence, the order passed by the authority concerned under the provisions of the Order of 1984 cannot be held to be legal and the case against the petitioner shall be deemed to continue under the provisions of the Order of 2001. 4. Clause 7 of Order of 2001 specifically provides that the punishment of suspensions and cancellations are two different punishments. Suspension has to be limited to 90 days only except when an F.I.R. is lodged against the dealer for any offence under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in which case the suspension shall continue till the matter is pending before the court of law. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, if there was any criminal case pending against the petitioner and on that ground the petitioner licence was being challenged the authority concerned could have only suspended his licence and should not have cancelled the licence without waiting for the result of the criminal cases against the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Bihar Control Order of 2001. 6. Hence, the impugned order of cancellation of petitioner’s licence is hereby quashed. His licence shall remain suspended till the criminal case pending against him is finally decided by the court of law. However, the petitioner shall have the 3 liberty to move before the authority concerned after his criminal case is finally disposed of and the concerned respondent authority shall decide the matter thereafter in accordance with law. Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J)