Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 30-8-1993 issued by respondent District Magistrate, Gaya, contained in Annexure-1. Whereby the petitioners licence granted to it under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Unification of Licences) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has been suspended on the sole ground that substantive criminal case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for violation of the provisions of the Unification order has been filed against the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of this writ application contended that under Clause 11 (2) of the Unification Order, licence of a person, granted under the provisions of the Unifictaion Order, can be suspended for a period of 90 days without giving any notice on the sole ground that a proceeding for cancellation, of licence has been either initiated or is under contemplation. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it appears that licence of a person cannot be suspended under the said clause merely because a substantive criminal case for prosecution under Section 7 of the Act has been filed. It is well-settled that since licence has been granted under the provisions of the Unification Order, which has been issued in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Act, licence has to be governed by the provisions of the Act. It can be suspended or cancelled in accordance with the provisions of the Unification Order upon grounds enumerated therein and not upon any other ground. So far as suspension of licence is concerned, the provision contained in Clause 11 (2) of the Unification Order contemplates only one contingency for suspension of the licence for a period of 90 days itself without any notice and that is when a proceeding for cancellation has been either initiated or the same is under contemplation. 4. In the case in hand, time was granted to learned Counsel for State to obtain instruction but no instruction has been received. Therefore , we have no option but to dispose of the writ application without further waiting for filing of the counter affidavit. 4. In the case in hand, time was granted to learned Counsel for State to obtain instruction but no instruction has been received. Therefore , we have no option but to dispose of the writ application without further waiting for filing of the counter affidavit. In any view of the matter, since in the order of suspension, it has not been mentioned that the licence of the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that a proceeding for cancellation of licence is pending or the same is under contemplation, we have no option but to quash it because the order of suspension on the face of it without any sanction is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, as by this order the petitioners fundamental right to carry on trade and business has been infringed. 5. In view of the foregoing discussions we are clearly of the view that the order of suspension cannot be allowed to be maintained. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the order of suspension of the peitioners licence, contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed- we may, however, observe that this order will, in no way, affect the merit of the criminal case nor the same will preclude the authority for taking any action in terms of Clause 11 (2) of the Unification Order. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed.