IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.18692 of 2010
RAMCHANDRA PASWAN, Son of Basudeo Paswan,
resident of Village-Kathautia Kewal, P.S.-Fatehpur,
Distt.-Gaya
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya
-----------
2. 30.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the
cancellation of his Public Distribution System license
by order dated 11.1.2010 on the ground of
institution of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2008
against him under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 419
of the Indian Penal Code only.
It is submitted that earlier the license of
the petitioner was suspended by order dated
12.7.2008. Relying on a decision of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 14703 of 2009, it is submitted that as
interpreted by this Court under the Public
Distribution System Licensing Order, 2007 Clause-7,
there cannot be a double punishment both by way of
suspension and cancellation as they have been
interpreted to mean independent punishment.
The First Information Report being under
the provisions of the Penal Code only, Rule-7 sub
2
Clause-3 has no application at this stage as the First
Information Report has not been registered under
the Essential Commodities Act and it is purely
speculative presently under which provision the
charge may or may not be framed.
Counsel for the State submits that the
petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice
issued both with regard to the suspension and
cancellation.
If a First Information Report had not been
lodged against the petitioner, the order of this Court
in C.W.J.C. No. 14703 of 2009 may have had its
application indisputably to the petitioner. The
distinction lies in the institution of a First
Information Report against him. Even if this Court
finds the cancellation to be bad on that ground, the
institution of the First Information Report may be
sufficient justification for continued suspension
under Rule-7(III). But, this Court finds substance
in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner
that the First Information Report being under the
provisions of the Penal Code only, it is completely
speculative at this stage under what provision of law
the charge may or may not be framed. But, if charge
is framed against the petitioner under the provision
3
of the Essential Commodities Act, undoubtedly Rule-
7(III) then shall have it full application.
With that observation, the impugned
orders dated 12.7.2008 and 11.1.2010 are set aside
without prejudice to the rights of the respondents.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)