ORDER The petitioners have challenged the orders as contained in Annexure-3 and Annexure-5. By Annexure-3, dated 08.04.2009, the petitioners’ license had been suspended on the ground that the petitioners had changed the business premises from where they were operating, as well as on the ground that there were anomalies in the distribution of Kerosene Oil. The petitioners were asked to show cause. Without considering their show cause or issuing the second notice to the petitioners, Annexure-5 was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya cancelling the license of the petitioners on the same grounds on which the license was suspended. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this case is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2010 (1) BLJ 267] wherein the Court has interpreted the provisions of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. The relevant provisions 7 (ii), 7(iv) and 7 (v) are quoted hereinbelow:- <span class="Hfont"> “(ii) ;fn dksbZ vuqKfIrèkkjh vuqKfIr ds izkoèkku vkSj fucaèkuksa] drZO;ksa] ftEesnkfj;ksa vkSj jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k dk mYya?ku djrk gS] rc fyf[kr vkns'k }kjk vuqKkiu izkfèkdkjh }kjk vuqKfIr fuyafcr@jn~n dj nh tk;sxhA (iv) vuqKfIr fuyafcr djus ls igys vuqKkiu izkfèkdkjh }kjk vuqKfIrèkkjh ds dkj.k crkvks iwNk tkuk vko';d gksxkA izLrkfor jn~ndj.k ds fo:¼ viuk ekeyk j[kus gsrw vuqKfIrèkkjh dks ;qfDr;qDr volj fn;k tk;sxkA (v) vuqKfIr dk fuyacu vfèkdkfjd 90 fnuksa dh vofèk ds fy, gksxkA bl chp vuqKfIr ds fuyacu dh frfFk ls ,d i[kokjs ds Hkhrj vuqKfIr ds fuyacu ls lacafèkr vfHkys[k ftyk Lrj p;u dfeVh dks Hkstk tkuk pkfg,A le;d tkap ds ckn p;u dfefV fuyacu ds izfrlagj.k gsrq vuq'kalk djsxh vkSj vuqKkiu izkfèkdkjh dks rnuqlkj dkjZokbZ djuh gksxhA** 3. It would appear that after the order of suspension was issued, the matter was not sent to the District Level Selection Committee as required under Clause 7 (v) of the Order, 2001 and without doing so, the order of cancellation was passed. 4. This Court had quashed the order of cancellation of the license of the P.D.S. dealer Pramod Kumar on the ground that the suspension and cancellation are measure of punishments and are in alternative. 4. This Court had quashed the order of cancellation of the license of the P.D.S. dealer Pramod Kumar on the ground that the suspension and cancellation are measure of punishments and are in alternative. Once, there is an order of suspension of the license, the license cannot be subsequently cancelled without giving a fresh notice, especially in view of the fact that the allegations as noted in the order of suspension and the order of cancellation are the same. 5. Relying on the decision in the case of Pramod Kumar (supra), this Court quashes Annexure-3 & Annexure-5 dated 08.04.2009 and 09.10.2009 respectively passed by the Licensing Officer i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Gaya. 6. These writ applications are thus allowed. ?