JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal preferred by the writ petitioner-Appellant is directed against the judgment/order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2807 of 2020 whereby the prayer for quashing the order of suspension of the PDS Licence of the petitioner dated 17.11.2009 and further for revoking the order of suspension and allowing the petitioner to operate the PDS Shop, was dismissed. 2. The claim of the writ petitioner is that he was granted PDS Licence on 03.03.1989 being Licence No. 24/89 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka, who was then Licensing Authority and thereafter, petitioner’s PDS shop started functioning from 1989 till October, 2009 without any complaint by any person and to the satisfaction of concerned respondent. However, on 01.11.2009 the Block Development Officer lodged an FIR under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the allegation that he got information on telephone that some of the villagers caught a person on a bicycle with 6 jericans containing 90 ltrs of kerosene oil. 3. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations action was taken by the Licencing authority and vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceeding by the State vide office order no 164/09 as contained in memo no. 1472 dated 17.11.2009, the PDS Licence of the writ petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and the PDS Shop was given to some other Licencee so that people of the locality may not suffer. Subsequent thereto, a show-cause notice was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka vide memo no. 01 dated 02.01.2020 which appears to have been signed on 30.12.2009 but issued on 02.01.2010. Vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the writ petitioner-appellant was directed to show cause within three days as to why for the aforesaid illegality and misconduct and wrong done by him in violation of the terms and conditions of the Licence, his PDS Licence should not be cancelled. The writ petitioner has submitted his show cause. However, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State informs us that no final order has been passed in the aforesaid proceeding even after lapse of 11 years. 4. The writ petitioner has submitted his show cause. However, Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State informs us that no final order has been passed in the aforesaid proceeding even after lapse of 11 years. 4. This is intriguing and surprising that how and in what manner the State authorities use to proceed, as at one hand, they had kept the Licence of the petitioner suspended and then issued notice for cancellation of Licence but have not acted thereafter towards concluding such proceeding. 5. The first and foremost question which arises in this case is as to under what provision of law such action of suspension of Licence and then issuance of a notice for cancellation of Licence was passed? 6. Sensing the fact that at the relevant point of time PDS Control Order was not in vogue in the State of Jharkhand, a stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the State that the same was issued under Clause 11(1) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred as “Unification Order”). 7. Now we are proceeding to test as to whether the order of suspension passes the test of its legality under Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order or not? 8. It is apparent from bare perusal of the suspension order that it refers no provision of statute or law under which the same has been passed. However, since stand is being taken at the time of hearing by the State of Jharkhand that it was passed under Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order, we are considering the same to have been passed under such provision. 9. For better appreciation the relevant provision under Clause 11(1) and 11(2) of the Unification Order is extracted and quoted hereunder as: “11. Suspension and cancellation of licence: (1) If any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 ( Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. (2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation proceeding of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” 10. From perusal of Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order, it appears that if a Licencee contravenes any terms and conditions of the Licence, then apart from proceeding to take action against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, his Licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing by the Licensing Authority and entry will be made in Licence with respect to suspension or cancellation. That clearly indicates that it is not a proceeding for cancellation of Licence granted for Public Distribution System. In fact, it is a proceeding for cancellation of suspension of Licence with regard to one or more trade articles for which the Licence was granted to the writ petitioner. In fact, there is no provision under which a Licence can be granted for running a Public Distribution System shop under the Unification Order. The Licensing provision is contained in Clause-3 of the Unification Order which is for grant of Licence for dealership of the trade articles and for contravention of which a punishment of suspension and cancellation is contemplated under Clause 11. The authorities usually execute agreement with the dealers or retailers to run a Public Distribution System shop in the benefit of public. 11. Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order contemplates that there can be a proceeding for cancellation of Licence and during the pendency of such proceeding, the Licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving an opportunity to the Licencee of stating his case. 12. 11. Clause 11(2) of the Unification Order contemplates that there can be a proceeding for cancellation of Licence and during the pendency of such proceeding, the Licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving an opportunity to the Licencee of stating his case. 12. Now, the question would be that if the framers of law have declared under Clause 11(2) that suspension of Licence up to 90 days can be imposed without giving opportunity to the Licencee, but cancellation of Licence must be done after granting reasonable opportunity to him and to show cause whether the suspension or cancellation of Licence under Clause 11(1) can be done in a similar manner without granting opportunity to the Licencee or after granting reasonable opportunity to him? 13. This question arises for consideration for the reason that suspension under Clause 11(2) is merely for 90 days and thereafter, if the final order is not passed regarding cancellation, the same stand revoked under operation of law itself but the order of punishment of suspension or cancellation under Clause 11 is a final one. 14. The issue as to whether in such case reasonable opportunity is required to be given to the affected person or not fell for consideration before a learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in Binod Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2015 (1) PLJR 816 who has answered the issue stating that principle of Audi Alteram Partem has to be followed by the authorities while taking step which is going to visit any civil consequence upon the concerned person or not. Therefore, if an order of suspension is going to be passed by way of imposing a punishment, then, before inflicting such punishment, reasonable opportunity has to be given even if there is no express provision to that extent in the concerned Clause otherwise, the order would have to be held to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. A reference was also made by the learned Single Judge to a decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in M/s Swami Distributor vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1990 (1) PLJR 210 . 15. A reference was also made by the learned Single Judge to a decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in M/s Swami Distributor vs. State of Bihar and Others, 1990 (1) PLJR 210 . 15. Thus, in our considered view, since a clear stand has been taken by the State of Jharkhand at the time of hearing that the order of suspension was passed under Clause 11(1) of the Unification Order, before passing such order of punishment in the form of suspension, a show cause notice should have been issued and the reply submitted by the concerned was also required to be considered and then final order could have been passed. That admittedly not having been done, the order impugned suffers from fatal lacunae and as such cannot be allowed to survive and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 16. So far as the subsequent notice issued vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition for contemplating cancellation of Licence is concerned, that would also be not sustainable in law inasmuch as on the similar set of facts, order of imposing punishment of suspension was already imposed and Clause 11(1) clearly indicates in clear terms that the Licensing Authority can either suspend the Licence or cancel the Licence by way of punishment. Once a decision was taken to suspend the Licence as punishment then on the similar set of facts, issuance of notice for another punishment for the same violation of the terms and conditions of the Licence would be without jurisdiction and as such, the subsequent notice as contained in Annexure-4 is also quashed and set aside. 17. Let it be noted here that even after passing of 11 years of Annexure-4, i.e. show cause notice issued in a proceeding for cancellation of Licence, no final action has been taken as yet by the Licenceing Authority. Thus, otherwise also, such proceeding cannot be allowed to continue till eternity. 18. Learned Single Judge has non-suited the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches in preferring the writ petition for suspension of Licence as the same having been passed in the year 2009 and the writ petition having been preferred in the year 2020, i.e. nearly 11 years. 18. Learned Single Judge has non-suited the writ petition only on the ground of delay and laches in preferring the writ petition for suspension of Licence as the same having been passed in the year 2009 and the writ petition having been preferred in the year 2020, i.e. nearly 11 years. However, one should have to understand that suspension is a recurring cause of action and, that apart, a notice was issued for cancellation of Licence also, however, the authorities did not conclude the proceeding even after lapse of 11 years and such proceeding is still pending. If such proceeding is pending then connected matter or suspension could also be challenged but in such case, the writ petitioner must be hoping that the cancellation proceeding may finalise in his favour also. 19. In such a situation it was not apt on the part of the learned Single Judge to throw the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is not a case that the petitioner was not aggrieved by the order rather he had filed a reply to the show cause for cancellation of Licence and was waiting for its final result. But when a Licencee can be allowed to be dislodged from having fruits of benefits of the Licence for time immemorial then after such patience for a loss he had approached this Court for revocation of suspension order as nothing was done finally in case of cancellation of Licence. 20. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. The concerned writ petition stands allowed and the order of suspension as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by the State in the writ proceeding as well as show cause notice contained in Anenxure-4 to the writ petition both are quashed and set aside. 21. The authorities are directed to resume supply to the PDS shop of the writ petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.