IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1207 of 2010 1. KAILASH KUMAR S/O LATE MATHUR KUMAR R/O VILL.- TELGHI, P.S.- KHARIK, SUBDIVISION- NAWGACHHIYA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER NAWGACHHIYA, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ----------- 2 18.05.2010 The petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Memo No 184 dated 29.07.2009 by which, while suspending the licence of the petitioner under PDS, he has been asked to show cause against cancellation. Petitioner states that as would be seen that more than 90 days have elapsed since the suspension and, as such, the suspension cannot carry on. Having heard the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. I am afraid, the order cannot be sustained in so far as suspension is concerned. Under the provisions of Clause 7 of the Bihar Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2007, there is now no provision for interim suspension as was there in Clause 11 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order. Now suspension and cancellation are two substantive punishments. That can be meted and that too after hearing. The two punishments are mutually exclusive. That being so, that part of the order impugned cannot be sustained which suspends the licence of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of by holding that the respondent-Subdivisional Officer would conclude the proceedings at the earliest not later than three months from the date of production of a copy 2 of this order but while disposing of the proceeding for cancellation, he cannot suspend the licence. That part of the order, by which licence has been suspended, is wholly without jurisdiction and is quashed as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)