ORDER : I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sate. 2. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 05.06.2009 passed by the licensing authority-cum-sub-divisional officer, Sadar, Saharsha by which his licence no.522/07 granted for running PDS shop has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises two questions. First question is that the show cause notice claimed to have been issued on 28.03.2008, has not been received by him and without giving sufficient opportunity to him the order of cancellation has been passed. Second issue raised on behalf of the petitioner is that once, for the charges levelled against the petitioner, a punishment of suspension of licence was imposed on 03.06.2008, the authority concerned was divested with the power to proceed further punishment by cancelling the concerned licence. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of a Division Bench dated 04.02.2013 in L.P.A. No. 15 of 2011 (Shiv Chandra Jha Vs. Harideo Jha & Ors). 4. I find force in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. Admittedly, when the petitioner’s licence was suspended on 03.06.2008 after issuance of a show cause notice on 28.03.2008, there was no occasion for the authorities concerned to proceed further and impose second punishment of cancellation. In my opinion, the impugned order suffers from another vice inasmuch as, even assuming that the show cause notice was issued and the petitioner did not file any reply thereof, no reason or finding has been recorded as to how the materials on record show that the petitioner was indulged in malpractice except reference having been made to a report of the Block Development Officer. Accordingly, in my opinion, the order impugned, as contained in Annexure-3, cannot be sustained in law and, as such, the same is set aside. 5. In view of the order of suspension having been passed on 03.06.2008 itself and the petitioner’s supplies, thereafter, has remained suspended since long that has also outlived its life. The petitioner would also be entitled for the resumption of supplies after if no FIR has been lodged against the petitioner under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act till 15th of July, 2011, i.e., the date on which the new notification amending the earlier provisions as contained in the Public Distribution System (Control) Amendment Order, 2011, was published in official Gazette. 6. 6. Before parting with the issue, I must indicate that this order would not come in the way of the concerned authority in initiation of a fresh proceeding on separate cause of action, if any. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed.