Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the original as well as the appellate order of the authority concerned by which his licence bearing Licence No.26 of 1985 for Fair Price Shop under the Public Distribution System was cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been running his Fair Price Shop on the basis of licence granted by the authorities concerned. He further submits that a criminal case bearing Nokha P.S. Case NO.76 of 2006 was instituted on 17.4.2006 against the petitioner and others for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in which the petitioner was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that on the basis of the aforesaid police case, the aforesaid licence of petitioner was cancelled by Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram (respondent no. 4) vide his order dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-1). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that against the said order the petitioner filed Supply Appeal No.03 of 2007 which was dismissed by Collector, Rohtas (respondent no. 3) vide his order dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner avers that petitioner and others were acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case subsequently vide order dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure-7) r assed by Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.III, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No.449 of 2007. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the impugned orders of the authorities concerned are legal and quite justified, as there was a criminal case against the petitioner and he was arrested by the police. . 6. Considering the averments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record as well as the impugned orders it is quite apparent that the proceeding of cancellation of petitioner's licence was initiated under the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Licensing Order of 1984' for the sake of brevity) and the order was passed there under. Furthermore, the appeal was also filed in the year 2007 under the Licensing Order of 1984 and it was decided under the same provision. Furthermore, the appeal was also filed in the year 2007 under the Licensing Order of 1984 and it was decided under the same provision. It is quite apparent that Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 came into force in the year 2001 itself and as per the provisions of the said Central Government Order of 2001, the State Government also passed Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order of 2001' for the sake of brevity) with respect to fair price shops under public distribution system. Clause 1 of the Control Order of 2001. clearly states that now the provision of Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order 1984 will not be applicable to fair price shops under the Public Distribution System. Hence, the authorities committed grave illegality in proceeding with the matter in accordance with the Licensing Order of 1984, although they should have dealt with the matter as per the provisions of the Control Order of 2001. 7. From a plain reading of the Licensing Order of 1984, especially Clause 11 thereof, it is quite apparent that there is no provision that a licence of fair price shop under the public distribution system can be legally cancelled merely on the ground that a criminal proceeding had been initiated against the licencee for offences unconnected with any offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 8. However, Sub-Clause (iii) to Clause 7 of the Control Order of 2001 provides that if F.I.R. is lodged against Fair Price Shop dealers for contravention of an order issued under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, their licence shall be suspended till the matter is pending before the court of law. There is no provision that for the said reason, the licence could be legally cancelled. 9. Furthermore from a bare reading of the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 449 of 2007 dated 29.1.2009 (Annexure-7), it is quite apparent that no proceeding 'was initiated against the petitioner for offences punishable under any sections of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, rather the said case was merely for offences punishable under Sections 302/ 34, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is also apparent from the said order of the trial court that all the accused persons, including the petitioner, were acquitted. It is also apparent from the said order of the trial court that all the accused persons, including the petitioner, were acquitted. As such the order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner appears to be against the specific provisions of law and cannot be legally allowed to stand. 10. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sasaram dated 18.12.2006 (Annexure-1) as well as the impugned appellate order of the Collector, Sahebganj (sic: Rohtas) dated 28.11.2008 (Annexure-2) passed in Supply Appeal No.3 of 2007 are hereby quashed and the authorities concerned are directed to allow the petitioner to continue with his fair price shop under the aforesaid licence.