IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8700 of 2010
1. SATYA NARAYAN SAH S/O PANCHU SAH R/O VILL.- LAHI, P.S.
SHANKARPUR, DISTT.- MADHEPURA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA
3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADHEPURA
4. THE DISTRICT RATIONING OFFICER (SUPPLY DEPARTMENT),
MADHEPURA
5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, MADHEPURA
6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER BLOCK SHANKARPUR, DISTT.-
MADHEPURA
7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SHANKARPUR, DISTT.-
MADHEPURA
-----------
3. 29.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
The Bihar Control Order 2001 notified on
20.2.2007, Clause-7 dealing with suspension/cancellation
of license has come up for consideration before this Court
in more than one writ application such as C.W.J.C. No.
6966 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 14703 of 2009.
Considering the power of suspension /cancellation and
incorporation of the new provisions, vis-a-vis the earlier
Bihar Trade Article (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984, this
Court has held that the control order of 2001 visualizes
suspension and cancellation of licence as two different
punishments. As distinct from the suspension of a licence
pursuant to the institution of a First Information Report, it
has been held by this Court that once a licence has been
suspended and action as required under Rules has been
2
taken after a show cause notice, the licence shall remain
under suspension for 90 days. Once the punishment of
suspension has been resorted to the authority cannot
proceed to cancel the licence as that shall amount to
double punishment which was not permissible in law.
The license of the petitioner having been
suspended and not cancelled on 24.6.2009, he having filed
his reply, the period of 90 days having long expired, the
continued suspension of his license is therefore not
permissible under Clause 7(5).
The respondents are directed to resume supplies
to the petitioner as his suspension has lost its statutory
effect.
The writ application stands allowed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)