IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.4490 of 2008
GODAWARI DEVI , W/O OM PRAKASH GIRI, R/O VILLAGE-
CHAINPUR, POLICE STATION- MIRCHAIYA, BLOCK-
KALYANPUR, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT
SELECTION COMMITTEE, EAST CHAMPARAN.
3.. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE-CUM-LICENCING
AUTHORITY OF CHAKIA, SUB-DIVISION, EAST
CHAMPARAN.
4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, KALYANPUR, SUB-DIVISION
CHAKIA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN.
...........RESPONDENTS.
For the petitioner : Mr. Raghawanand, Advocate.
For the State : G.A - 2.
CWJC No.7619 of 2010
BHIRIGUNATH TIWARI, S/O LATE RAGHAV JEE TIWARI, R/O
VILLAGE -SIGARPATTI,P.O. & P.S.- HUSSAINGANJ,DISTRICT-
SIWAN.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER,SADAR,SIWAN.
3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN.
4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, HUSSAINGANJ,SIWAN.
..........RESPONDENTS.
For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, G.C to S.K - 12.
CWJC No.9824 of 2010
BHUSHAN KUMAR BHARATI S/O LATE BASHUDEO PASWAN
R/O VILL.- UPERHULI, TOLA- KHAGARI BIGHA, P.S.- PARAIYA,
DISTT.- GAYA
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIKARI, GAYA
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, TIKARI, GAYA
..........RESPONDENTS.
For the petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, G. C to G.P -
13.
CWJC No.14399 of 2010
-2-
RAJKUMAR MANJHI, S/O LATE DEOKI MANJHI, R/O VILLAGE-
TRILOKICHAK, POLICE STATION- WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT-
GAYA.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
...........RESPONDENTS.
For the petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Vasant Vikas, G.C to S.C - 23.
CWJC No.14445 of 2010
MUNDRIKA PRASAD YADAV, S/O CHANDESHWER PRASAD
YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- PAHARI, POLICE STATION- FATEHPUR,
DISTRICT- GAYA.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SDAR GAYA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
..........RESPONDENTS.
CWJC No.14431 of 2010
MAHENDRA YADAV @ MAHENDRA KUMAR, S/O MEGHRAJ
PRASAD YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- KANWAN, POLICE STATION-
WAZIRGANJ (TANKUPPA), DISTRICT- GAYA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SDAR GAYA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
..........RESPONDENTS.
CWJC No.14229 of 2010
BABULAL CHAUDHARI, S/O LATE JAGDISH CHAUDHARI, R/O
VILLAGE- MAHMMADPUR, POLICE STATION- WAZIRGANJ,
DISTRICT- GAYA.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SDAR GAYA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
-3-
..........RESPONDENTS.
CWJC No.14450 of 2010
RAMDEO PRASAD, S/O LATE KHADERAN SAO, R/O VILLAGE-
BINDIKHURD, POLICE STATION- FATEHPUR, DISTRICT- GAYA.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA.
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SDAR GAYA.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GAYA.
5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SADAR GAYA.
..........RESPONDENTS
.-----------
03/ 28.09.2010
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
-4-
sake of brevity).
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 authorities regarding
suspension of the licences of the petitioners would be limited to ninety
-6-
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.
6. With the aforesaid directions/observations, all the
above-mentioned writ petitions are allowed.
(S. N. Hussain, J.)
Ranjan