IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8515 of 2008
Prabhu Nath Rai son of Sri Gokhul Rai, resident of village and P.O.
Fajullahpur, P.S. Baikunthpur, District-Gopalganj.
........Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.
4. Block Marketing Officer, Baikunthpur, Block Baikunthpur,
District-Gopalganj.
........Respondents.
------
For the petitioner : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar Lal, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, A.C to G.P.16.
——
With
CWJC No.15960 of 2008
Munshi Sah @ Manshi Sah, son of Late Bhola Sah, resident of Village-
Sukhlahi, P.S.-Maina Tand, District-West Champaran.
…….Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran.
3. The S.D.O., Narkatiaganj, West Champaran.
4. The Block Development Officer, Mainatand, West Champaran.
…….Respondents.
———–
For the petitioner : Mr.Shekhar Singh, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Maddoka Mishra, A. C. to G.A. 7.
——
With
CWJC No.11304 of 2010
Md. Attaulah, S/O Navi Hasan, resident of village-Bishunpur Patti,
P.S.- Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur.
…… Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supplies,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, District-Muzaffarpur.
4. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum- Licensing Authority, West
Muzaffarpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
….. Respondents.
—–
For the petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. R.K.Choubey, G.P.-7.
——–
2
02/ 10.08.2010 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).
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
3
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
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
4
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 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.
Sunil ( S. N. Husain, J.)