Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1164 (PAT)

Anuplal Yadav v. State of Bihar

2014-11-25

JYOTI SARAN

body2014
JYOTI SARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Labh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar A.C. to S.C. 24 for the State. 2. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself by way of this judgment. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order bearing memo No. 491 dated 27.6.2011 passed by the licensing authority-cum- Sub Divisional Officer, Banka whereby the licensing authority while suspending the licence of the petitioner has further noticed the petitioner to show cause as to why his licence be not cancelled, the order is present at Annexure-4. The petitioner filed his reply and whereafter an order has been passed by the licensing authority bearing Memo No. 589 dated 23.7.2011 whereby the licence of the petitioner has been cancelled which order is present at Annexure-1. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed by the appellate authority dated 18.10.2013 whereby the Supply Appeal Case No. 42 of 2011-12 filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. The appellate order is impugned at Annexure-6. 4. A very short submission has been made by Mr. Labh appearing for the petitioner to submit that once the petitioner has suffered the penalty of suspension, there being no other allegations, the petitioner can not be saddled with a second penalty of termination of licence. 5. Although the matter is pending since 29.1.2014 but no counter affidavit has been filed. 6. The issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioner to contest the impugned orders finds support in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 956 (Shiv Chandra Jha Vs. State). It has been held by this Court that a penalty of suspension and termination being two different penalties under the Bihar Fair Price Shop Order, 2007 issued under the Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2001, a licensee cannot be saddled with both the punishments for the same offence. Thus the moment the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer vide order passed on 27.6.2011 chose to impose a penalty of suspension on the petitioner for the allegations mentioned in the order, there lay no further occasion for him to issue show cause notice in respect of termination of his license on the self same charges. Thus the moment the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer vide order passed on 27.6.2011 chose to impose a penalty of suspension on the petitioner for the allegations mentioned in the order, there lay no further occasion for him to issue show cause notice in respect of termination of his license on the self same charges. Clearly, the orders of cancellation passed by the licensing authority as affirmed by the appellate authority for the same charges which were basis for the order of suspension cannot be upheld in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court referred to above. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, the order bearing Memo No. 589 dated 23.7.2011 of the Licensing Authority-cum-Sub Divisional Officer, Banka as affirmed by the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Collector, Banka in the capacity of an appellate authority in Supply Appeal Case No. 42 of 2011-12 cannot be upheld and are accordingly set aside. 8. The writ petition is allowed and in consequence the licence of the petitioner stands restored. ?