IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7 of 2009 Ram Prasad Singh son of Late Saryug Singh, resident of village-Mauza Narainpur, P.S.- Thawe, District-Gopalganj. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Gopalganj. ……Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Sinha, A.C. to G.P. IV. -------- 04/ 14.02.2011 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of cancellation of his licence for running fair price shop on the same grounds on which his licence had been earlier suspended by the authorities concerned. 2. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a punishment of suspension of licence has already been given to him and hence for the same offence another punishment of cancellation of his licence cannot be legally given to him by the authorities concerned in view of the provisions of the Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as `the Central Control Order of 2001’ for the sake of brevity ) followed by the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, notified vide G.S.R. 1 dated 20.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Control Order of 2001 for the sake of brevity). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel - 2 - for the petitioner and stated that the licence was granted to the petitioner under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity) and hence the action for suspension/cancellation of such licence would be governed only by its provisions. Relying upon Clause 11 of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984, it was claimed that the suspension of licence of the petitioner was merely interim measures during the proceeding for cancellation of such licence and hence there was no bar in cancelling the licence of a licensee, which had already been suspended. He further claimed that the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 was concerned with the licensing matter, whereas, Central Control Order of 2001 and Bihar Control Order of 2001 were with respect to Public Distribution System and the latter cannot legally govern the former. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon a decision of the Single Bench of this Court in case of Punsraj Begawani & another vs. The State of Bihar & another, reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. 1150. Finally learned counsel for the respondents stated that the statutory appeal has been provided under Clause 28 of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 as well as under Clause 15 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 and hence this writ petition is not maintainable on that score also. 4. Similar matters have been considered vide order dated 14.07.2010 by this Court in a batch of cases in case of Pradhuman Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. - 3 - No. 6966 of 2008) and analogous cases, in which it has been specifically held that after coming into force of the Bihar Control Order of 2001, the provisions of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 would not be applicable to the fair price shop under the Public Distribution System and for all practical purposes, the provisions of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 would be applicable. It has also been held that after coming into force of the Bihar Control Order of 2001 it was for the authorities to select either to suspend the licence of the petitioner or to cancel it at the very initial stage. Once the punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authorities for the petitioner, there was no occasion or jurisdiction for him to pass any further order of punishment for the same offence against the petitioner, namely cancellation. Thus the impugned order of the respondents-authorities cancelling licence of the petitioner after 2007 apart from being illegal and perverse, is also absolutely without jurisdiction and hence it cannot be legally allowed to stand. 5. In the light of the aforesaid special circumstances as well as the aforesaid decision of this Court and the specific provisions of law as discussed above, order of the respondents- authorities cancelling licence of the petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition, is hereby quashed. It is further directed that the order of the authorities regarding suspension of the licence of the petitioner would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the order of suspension of - 4 - the licence of the petitioner would cease to have any legal effect. 6. With the aforesaid directions/observations, this writ petition is allowed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)