IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7811 of 2010
PASUPATI NATH SAH, S/O LATE GIRJA SAH, R/O VILL.-
KHAGRAUNI, PANCHAYAT- BAGHAUNA, P.S.-
HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN
........ Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SIWAN
3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SIWAN
4. BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, HUSSAINGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN
........ Respondents.
For the petitioner : Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, AC to SC-XI.
-----------
2. 30-09-2010 The petitioner has challenged the order of cancellation of
licence for running fair price shop on the same ground on which his
licence had been earlier suspended by the authority concerned.
2. The point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in
this writ petition 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 authority 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
2
vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel 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. No. 6966 of
3
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 licence of the
petitioner or to cancel it at the very initial stage. Once the
punishment of suspension had been chosen by the authority 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 orders of the
respondent-authority canceling 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, the order of the respondent-
authority cancelling licence of the petitioner, which is under
challenge in the above-mentioned writ petition, is hereby quashed. It
is further directed that the order of the authority 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 the licence of the petitioner would cease to have any
4
legal effect.
6. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ
petition is allowed.
Sujit (S.N.Hussain,J.)