Judgment S. K. Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as mr. Dayanand Singh, learned Standing counsel-Y for the State. 2. Although the petitioner was required to move in appeal against the impugned order instead of directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, as alternative remedy of appeal is available under the Statute, but as the case has already been admitted on 6-11-1989 and statutory period for filing an appeal against the impugned order has elapsed during the pendency of this application before this court, the present case is being disposed of on merit. But, this shall be an exception and will not be treated as a precedent in other similar cases. 3. The present writ application has been directed against the order of the District Magistrate, Gaya dated 6th September 1989 passed in Case No.83 of 1989 vide Annexure-3, by which the licence of the petitioner granted under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licences Order 1984 bearing Licence No.53 of 1986 has been cancelled. 4. On 8-7-1989, the Inspecting party on the order of the District Magistrate, gaya raided the shop of Raj Kumar Gupta (the petitioner) situated in holding No.3 in the compound of Krishi Bazar, Chandauti in the District of gaya. Being Saturday, it was not a weekly holiday, still, the shop was found to be closed. The Inspecting Party sealed the shop of the petitioner in presence of independent persons and other Officers present there. On 10-7-1989 the seal of the shop was broken and inspection was made and it was found that the petitioner has violated the conditions of the licence granted to him on more than one count. A notice to show cause as served on the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the show cause which was considered by the District magistrate, Gaya, who found the show cause to be unsatisfactory and as the petitioner had violated terms and conditions of the licence, the District magistrate ordered the cancellation of the same. 5. The petitioner has moved this Court against the cancellation order passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya vide his order dated 6th September, 1989 passed in Case No.83 of 1989. 6. 5. The petitioner has moved this Court against the cancellation order passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya vide his order dated 6th September, 1989 passed in Case No.83 of 1989. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner has not violated any condition of the licence and the cancellation order is also based on consideration of such materials which were not communicated to the petitioner in the notice to show cause served on him. He has further submitted that if at all any case is made out against the petitioner it is for violation of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953, and separate prosecution and punishment is prescribed for the same. He has further submitted that for violation of the provisions of Shops and Establishments, act, the licence of the petitioner cannot be cancelled. 7. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has contended that the petitioner had violated the terms of the Licence in as much as ; (i) The shop was closed on a day which has not a weekly closure day ; (ii) The register and other documents were not kept inside the shop and were brought from the residence of the petitioner. (iii) The Board showing the price and position of the stock was not displayed at a prominent place. He further submitted that in addition to the aforesaid terms, other terms of the licence has also been violated and as such, the District Magistrate was justified in cancelling his licence. 8 Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order dated 15-2-1990 passed by this Court in CWJC No.8643 of 1989 (Narendra Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and others ). After the argument in the aforesaid case was concluded on 28-6-1990 and judgment was reserved, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to an order dated 3-9-1990 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC no.1564 of 1990 (Mohan Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and others. 9. After the argument in the aforesaid case was concluded on 28-6-1990 and judgment was reserved, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to an order dated 3-9-1990 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWJC no.1564 of 1990 (Mohan Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and others. 9. Taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the State and after perusing the orders referred to above, as relied upon by the petitioner, I am of the view that, as the shop of the petitioner was closed at the relevant time, there was no question of complying with the provisions of the Bihar Essential Article (Display of Prices and Stocks) Order, 1977 and the petitioner was not bound to produce the register. The petitioner, on the other hand, had produced the register and other documents when the shop was opened. Neither the F. I. R. nor the show cause or the order of the District Magistrate shows that at what time the raid was conducted and, as such, it cannot be persumed that the raid was conducted at the time when the shop was supposed "to be open. There is no strength in the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the licence of the petitioner can be cancelled for the violation of the conditions of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act. Shops and Establishments Act is a separate Act and separate prosecution and punishment is therein the Act and as such, if the petitioner had violated any provisions of that Act, action should have been taken under the provisions of the Act. 10. For the reasons discussed above, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon non-est ground and the same is without jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 6-9-1989 passed by the District magistrate, Gaya as contained in Annexure-3. 12. In the result the application succeeds and the order contained in annexure-3 is quashed. There shall be no order as to cost. Writ application allowed.