IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6623 of 2006 Smt. Champa Devi, W/o Shiv Shankar Manjhi, resident of Village- Rampur Chakarma, Police Station-Bhore, District-Gopalganj. …….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua, District-Gopalganj. ….. Respondents. With CWJC No.12390 of 2006 Ashok Kumar Sah son of Sukhdeo Kumar Sah, resident of Village- Jibachhpur, Police Station- Banmankhi, District-Purnea. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food, Supply and Commerce Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. The District Magistrate-cum Collector, Purnea. 4. The S.D.O.Banmankhi, District-Purnea. ….. Respondents. With CWJC NO.1882 OF 2010 Anand Deo Paswan S/O Shri Mahadeo Paswan R/O VILL- Raghnathkhap, P.S. Gurua, DISTT. Gaya. …. PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Food and Civil Supplies Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghati at Gaya. 4. The District Supply Officer, Gaya. 5. The In-Charge Block Supply Officer, Gurua, Gaya. …. Respondents. With CWJC no.4050 of 2010 Umesh Kumar S/O Late Kayal Ram R/O Village and Panchayat Selhauri Belhauri, P.S. Dulhin Bazar, DISTT.- Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through D.M., Patna. 2. Principal Secretary Food Consumer Protection Deptt., Old Secretariat, Patna. 3. District Magistrate Patna. 4. Subdivisional Officer Paliganj, Distt.- Patna 5. Block Supply Officer I/C Dulhin Bazar, Block P.S. Dulhinbazar, Distt.- Patna. …. Respondents. 2 With CWJC No.5458 of 2009 Surendra Kumar Sudhir, son of Dharamdeo Singh, Resident of Umrao Bigha, Gram Panchayat Lengura, Block Rajauli, Distict- Nawada. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Supply Officer, Nawada. 5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Rajauli, District-Nawada. 6. The Block Supply Inspector, Rajauli, District-Nawada. …. Respondents. With CWJC no.15794 of 2008 Mossamat Sarojini wife of Late Dinesh Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-Taja, P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Supply Officer, Katihar. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsai, District-Katihar. 3. The Block Supply Officer, Kadwa, District-Katihar. ….Respondents . WITH CWJC NO.15219 OF 2008 Subhash Chandra Rai, son of Late Nukul Rai, resident of village- Kabaiya Bishanpur, P.S. Kadwa, District-Katihar. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum- District Supply Officer, Katihar. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barsoi, District-Katihar. 3. The Block Supply Officer, Kadwa, District-Katihar. …. Respondents. WITH CWJC NO.11598 OF 2009 Ram Kumar Yadav, son of Late Chhedi Yadav, R/o Vill- Pararia, P.S.-Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. …..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gaya Sadar, District-Gaya. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bodh Gaya Block, District- Gaya. 3 6. The Block Supply Officer, Bodh Gaya Block, District-Gaya. …Respondents. WITH CWJC NO.15348 OF 2009 Nagendra Prasad, son of Late Ramdayal Mahto, Resident of Village Jamunia, Shohadra, P.S. Shohadra, District-West Champaran. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. S. D.O. Narkatiyaganj, District-West Champaran. …. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 05.08.2010 All these cases have been heard together and are being decided by this common order as in all of them the petitioners have challenged the orders of cancellation of their respective licences for running fair price shops on the same grounds on which their respective licences had been earlier suspended by the authorities concerned. 2. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in all the aforesaid cases is that a punishment of suspension of licence has already been given to them and hence for the same offence another punishment of cancellation of their licences cannot be legally given to them 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). 4 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in all the aforesaid cases vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the licences were granted to the petitioners 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 licences 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 licences of the petitioners were merely interim measures during the proceeding for cancellation of such licences 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 these writ petitions are not maintainable on that score also. 4. Similar matters have been considered vide order dated 5 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. 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 shops 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 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 petitioners, namely cancellation. Thus the impugned orders of the respondents-authorities canceling licences of the petitioners after 2007 apart from being illegal and perverse, are also absolutely without jurisdiction and hence they 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, the respective orders of the respondents-authorities cancelling licences of the petitioners, which are under challenge in the above-mentioned writ petitions, are hereby quashed. It is further directed that the orders of the 6 authorities regarding suspension of the licences of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the respective orders of suspension of the licences of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)