Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is a retail dealer in terms of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 and has been appointed as a dealer under Public Distribution System. In course of inspection, the stock register of the petitioner was found-in a premises of another dealer. A criminal case was instituted against the said dealer as well as several other dealers whose papers and other documents were found with the said dealer. While the matter was being investigated, pursuant to directions of the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, the Sub-divisional Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for appropriate action in view of the petitioner being accused in the criminal case. The petitioner filed his show cause. Merely stating that shows cause was not satisfactory, the show cause was rejected and in view of pendency of the criminal case, the licence of the petitioner was suspended. 3. It may be mentioned here that so far as retail dealers are concerned, the Sub-divisional Officer is the licensing authority and Collector of the district is the appellate authority. Clause 11 of the Unification Order provides for suspension and/ or cancellation of licence on a dealer violating the provisions of the Unification Order and/or the terms and conditions of the licence issued thereunder. Clause 11(1) deals with substantive power to cancel or suspend. Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order provides for an interim suspension of licence pending cancellation proceedings without giving an opportunity of hearing to the licensee but such suspension cannot continue for a period beyond ninety days. From the combined reading of Clause 11 of the Unification Order, it is clear that suspension is of two types. Either, there may be an interim suspension pending cancellation proceedings which is done without issuance of notice and is limited in time and the second is suspension by way of substantive punishment. There being a punishment of cancellation as well, the distinction between the two that is between cancellation and suspension is that suspension has to be for a limited period after which the licence stands revived automatically. In the present case, the order of the Sub-divisional Officer is bad inasmuch as it has been passed awarding a substantive punishment of suspension but without limiting the period. In other words, it is suspension ad infinitum which is not permissible in law. Suspension cannot take place of cancellation. In the present case, the order of the Sub-divisional Officer is bad inasmuch as it has been passed awarding a substantive punishment of suspension but without limiting the period. In other words, it is suspension ad infinitum which is not permissible in law. Suspension cannot take place of cancellation. Suspension has, therefore, to be limited in period and cannot exceed the licensing period because, thereafter, petitioner is lawfully entitled to renewal thereof. To that extent, the order of the Sub-divisional Officer cannot be sustained. 4. What is more significant is that the suspension even though done after hearing the petitioner was mainly on the ground that the petitioner has been made an accused in a criminal case. Petitioner has brought on record that after full investigation, the petitioner was not sent up for trial, in other words, petitioner was not chargesheeted. He, therefore, ceased to be an accused in any criminal case for there was no trial now pending against him. This would establish that there is no criminal case now and, therefore, the very basis for suspension now stands taken away. It is curious to note that the petitioner, when he was not charge-sheeted, approached the Collector for restoring his licence, the Collector held that as no order has been passed by the Criminal Court, his application cannot be considered. Thereafter, the Criminal Court accepted the charge-sheet in which the petitioner had not been sent up for trial still petitioners licence continued to be suspended whereas one of the persons so charge-sheeted and in respect of whom cognizance was taken, her licence was restored. Without going into the later averment, suffice to say that as after full police investigation, nothing culpable was found against the petitioner the very reason for suspending the licence as a matter of punishment vanishes. The foundation having been taken away, the order of suspension cannot survive. 5. It is, accordingly, held that the suspension order, as passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, the continuance of the suspension order of the Sub-divisional Officer is, thus, unsustainable in law and it is, therefore, liable to be quashed and is quashed as such. The writ application is consequently allowed.