( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as the learned counsel for the newly added respondent no. 4. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 19. 4. 2005, Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by respondent no. 2 and the order dated 8. 9. 2006, Annexure-1 to the writ petition passed by respondent no. 1. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. On the basis of a complaint a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner levelling certain charges that he has committed various irregularities in distributing the goods to the card-holders and the petitioner was given a show cause notice to file a reply. The main allegation against the petitioner was that during the months of Oct and Nov. 2004, he has not distributed wheat and rice. Further allegation was made against the petitioner that for the months of Feb. , March, August, Sept. Nov. and Dec. 2004 the petitioner has not distributed the wheat, rice and other articles. On the basis of the reply submitted by the petitioner with various documents, the authorities found that for the months of Oct. and Nov. 2004, the food grains and other articles were not allocated by the Corporation from the go-down to the petitioner. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances as there was some minor irregularity in not entering some names in the register after distribution, therefore, a fine was imposed upon petitioner, but the licence of the petitioner has not been cancelled and the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges levelled. This order was passed by the licensing authority on 11. 2. 2005. ( 4 ) THE petitioner submits that only on the basis of the same and similar charges again a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and in spite of the fact of submission of the reply by the petitioner with relevant documents showing therein that on the same charges, the petitioner has already been exonerated and it has been found that there is no violation of conditions of licence, as such the subsequent proceeding is bad and without jurisdiction. But the licensing authority without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has cancelled the licence of the petitioner -vide its order dated 19. 5. 2005, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. But the licensing authority without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact has cancelled the licence of the petitioner -vide its order dated 19. 5. 2005, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed an appeal. The appeal too has been dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. ( 5 ) THE writ petition was entertained and the respondents were granted time to file a counter affidavit. As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged, therefore, the matter is being finally disposed of with the consent of the parties. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court regarding the first charge by which the petitioner has already been acquitted and the subsequent charges and has shown that the charges are same and similar. Therefore, once a person has been acquitted or exonerated on a particular charge, he cannot be punished twice for the same charge. The appellate court has also not considered this aspect of the matter in spite of the fact that a specific averment has been made in para 7 of the appeal filed before the Commissioner. Further a specific averment has been made in paras 14 and 15 of the writ petition stating therein that the petitioner cannot be punished twice on the same charge. Once on the same charge the authorities have found some irregularity and imposed fine, then question will be whether on the same charge the licence of the petitioner can be cancelled subsequently. There is no specific denial in the reply to pars 14 and 15 of the allegations made in the writ petition. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that on the basis of complaint a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and he was found guilty, therefore, a fine of Rs. 1000/- was imposed and a warning to that effect was issued to the petitioner and subsequently again a complaint was made against the petitioner on 17. 1. 2005 and a proper inquiry was made and after affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. The appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal. 1000/- was imposed and a warning to that effect was issued to the petitioner and subsequently again a complaint was made against the petitioner on 17. 1. 2005 and a proper inquiry was made and after affording full opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed. The appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears that on the basis of the complaint, certain charges were levelled against the petitioner and after furnishing the reply by the petitioner, the petitioner was able to prove from the record that for the months of Oct. and Nov. 2004, goods have not been supplied to the petitioner, therefore, it could not be distributed. The competent authority has found that some minor irregularities have been committed by the petitioner in not entering into the stock register regarding distribution of some goods to the card holders. But as regards the major charges which were levelled against the petitioner for non-distributing the goods properly during the particular period, the same has not been believed in the earlier proceeding. Therefore, in my opinion, in the subsequent proceeding, on the same charges, a person cannot be punished once a fine has been imposed in the earlier proceeding. It is well settled in law that a person cannot be punished twice for one and the same charge. From the perusal of order impugned, charges are almost similar to the earlier charges In my opinion, it is not permissible in law. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid fact the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19. 4. 2005, Annexure-2 to the writ petition and order dated 8. 9. 2006, Annexure-1 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. It is however, open to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No order is passed as to costs. .