JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order of the SubDivisional Officer-cum-Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur West (respondent no. 4) vide memo no. 872 dated 8.12.2008 (Annexure-1) by which the licence of the P.D.S. shop of the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and since then the licence of the petitioner has remained suspended, although more than one and half years have lapsed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although there was an F.I.R. against the petitioner, but in that F.I.R. the licence number of the petitioners P.D.S. shop was not mentioned. He places reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this court in case of M/s. Swami Distributors V/s. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 1990(1) BLJ 392 [: 1990(1) PLJR 210], in which it was held that there is no power of suspension provided in the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 for the sake of brevity) during the pendency of the criminal case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Hence, he submits that the said order of the authority is absolutely illegal and is void and has to be set aside. 4. No doubt, in Bihar Order, 1984, there is no provision for suspension of such licence during the pendency of a criminal case under Section 7 of the Act, but by Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 and the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Control Order of 2001 for the sake of brevity), notified vide G.S.R.-1 dated 20.2.2007, it was squarely provided that after coming into force of the said control orders, the provisions of the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984 will not be applicable to fair price shops under the public distribution system. In the said circumstances, the law having changed, the aforesaid decision in case of M/s Swami Distributors (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. In the said circumstances, the law having changed, the aforesaid decision in case of M/s Swami Distributors (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. Now as per the provision of Bihar Control Order of 2001, cancellation and suspension have been made two separate and distinct punishments according to Clause 7(H) thereof and for any single offence, the authority has to choose any one of them. So far the question of suspension is concerned, two categories of suspension have been provided in Clause 7 of the Bihar Control Order of 2001. The first is automatic suspension on lodging an F.I.R. which has to continue till the matter is pending before a court of law according to Clause 7(iii) thereof. The second is suspension on general ground for a maximum period of 90 days after issuance of show cause notice according to Clause 7(iv) thereof. The instant case comes under the former category as F.I.R. has already been lodged against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of another Single Bench of this court in case of Raj Kumar Sethi V/s. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2009(3) P.L.J.R. 748 . In the said case, F.I.R. was lodged due to unauthorised possession of domestic gas cylinders and kerosene oil only not whispering anything about public distribution or fair price shop of the petitioner of that case and hence it was held that in such circumstances, the authorities concerned could not assume jurisdiction in the matter and suspend petitioners licence of public distribution system. 7. However, in the instant case, the matter is completely different as F.I.R. dated 5.12.2008 was initiated at the instance of the Block Supply Officer, Kanti for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, alleging violation of the terms of P.D.S licence on many counts. In the said circumstances, the decision in case of Raj Kumar Sethi (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that the case has been concluded or is not pending before a court of law. Hence, during the pendency of the case arising out of the said F.I.R. the licence of the petitioner has to remain suspended in accordance with law. 8. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioner that the case has been concluded or is not pending before a court of law. Hence, during the pendency of the case arising out of the said F.I.R. the licence of the petitioner has to remain suspended in accordance with law. 8. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order, nor does it find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.