Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 339 (PAT)

Yogendra Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2014-03-11

RAVI RANJAN

body2014
ORAL ORDER 1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have perused the records of this case. 2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.12.2003 contained in Annexure-5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-licensing authority, Bagaha, by which his licence no. 68 of 1985 granted under the Bihar Trade Articles(Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as “Unification Order”) has been cancelled. 3. The petitioner also assailed the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, by which the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the licensing authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a short question in this case for determination. 5. It is submitted that, vide Annexure 1 dated 11.09.2003, a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner for explaining the charges contained in the notice in a proceeding in contemplation of suspension of the licence under Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order. Thereafter, the licence was suspended vide Annexure 2, however, again he was directed to come up with all the required registers etc. otherwise it was stated that his licence would be cancelled. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared and submitted a reply. However, his licence was cancelled on consideration of same set of charges. It is submitted that the subsequent imposition of the punishment would not be sustainable in law as a person cannot be punished twice for the same set of charges. 6. This issue is no longer res integra. This Court has already held in Laxmi Rai v. The State of Bihar and others (2013(4) Patna Law Journal Reports, 251) that under Clause 11 of the Unification Order the licence could either be suspended or could be cancelled by way of punishment after issuance of show-cause notice. However, on the basis of same set of charges, after imposition of a punishment of suspension of the licence of the petitioner, the subsequent order of cancellation of his licence would not be sustainable in law. However, on the basis of same set of charges, after imposition of a punishment of suspension of the licence of the petitioner, the subsequent order of cancellation of his licence would not be sustainable in law. This Court while taking the aforesaid view had also considered the provisions of Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order which provides that if a proceeding has been initiated in contemplation of a punishment of cancellation of the licence then during the pendency of such proceeding, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. That would definitely mean that in a proceeding for imposition of suspension of the licence by way of punishment, issuance of show-cause notice would be mandatory. This has been further held that after imposition of punishment of suspension under Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order, the subsequent issuance of notice for cancellation of the licence and the order of cancellation would not be sustainable in law. In above view of the matter, this writ application succeeds and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 5 and 6 are set aside. Since the order of suspension was passed in the year 2003 itself, that also cannot continue for such a long period. That apart, such order was already replaced by the order of cancellation that has now been set aside. As such, the petitioner would be entitled for resumption of supplies.