1. A suspension order passed without affording the licensee an opportunity of being heard is illegal. 2. A cancellation order passed on a public holiday when the licensee is entitled to file its explanation on the following day is illegal.

1. These two writ applications are by the same petitioner, which is a firm carrying on business at Forbesganj in the district of Purnea in cloths under licence bearing No. 111-F of 1965 issued under the Bihar Cotton Cloth and Yarn (Control) Order, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Order). By an order dated the 8th Sept., 1976, the Subdivisional Officer, Araria, suspended the said licence of the petitioner. That order has been made Annexure 1 to the application in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2564 of 1976. Against the said order of suspension, the petitioner went in appeal to the District Magistrate, Purnea who by his order dated the 24th Nov., 1976, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of suspension of the petitioners licence. That order has been made Annexure 2 to the said writ applition. In the said writ case there is a prayer for quashing the aforesaid two orders. By another order dated the 16th March 1977, the Subdivisional Officer, Araria, has cancelled the aforesaid licence of the petitioner. This order has been made Annexure 1 to the petition in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 678 of 1977, and a prayer has been made in this case for quashing the order. The writ applications, in the circumstances have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

2. So far Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 678 of 1977 is concerned, it appears from the impugned order dated 16th March, 1977 (Annexure 1) that it was passed after 5.30 P. M. that day when the petitioner did not submit any explanation by that time. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that by a notification No. 3918 dated the 3rd March, 1977, 16th March, 1977 was declared a public holiday under S. 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Araria Parliamentary Constituency. The order (Annexure 1) was passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Araria. A copy of the said gazette notification has also been placed before us and it confirms the aforesaid statement that 16th March, 1977 was declared a public holiday in the Araria Parliamentary Constituency which included Araria itself. The 16th March, 1977, being the public holiday, under the law the petitioner became entitled to file his explanation till the following day i. e., 17th March, 1977. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that the offices at Araria were opened on the 16th March, 1977, in spite of the gazette notification and the petitioner could have filed his explanation on that date. Once the 16th March, 1977 was declared a public holiday, whether the offices were kept open or not on that day is immaterial. The petitioner could ignore the fact that offices were open on that day and in law he became entitled, as observed earlier, to file his explanation on the following day.

3. In the circumstances, the order, cancelling the licence of the petitioner by respondent No. 3 of that case, is illegal and cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. In this circumstance it is not necessary to go into other contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the case. The petitioner is entitled to get further opportunity for filing his explanation in the matter of cancellation of its licence and the authorities must consider that explanation, if filed within a reasonable time allowed for the purpose before passing order if any of cancellation.

4. So far Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2564 of 1976 is concerned, as stated earlier, in that case the licence of the petitioner has been suspended. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that the order of suspension was merely an interim order and not a final one by way of punishment. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, such an order could be passed once it was contemplated to consider the question whether the licence of the petitioner should be finally suspended or cancelled or not, for in such circumstances if there were prima facie ma