The main legal point established in the judgment is that once a license is suspended, the licensing authority is divested of its power to cancel the license.

Interlocutory Application No. 101 of 2011:

The delay of 10 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

2. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 15 of 2011:

3. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 8th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge insofar as C.W.J.C. No.16552 of 2009 is allowed, the intervener has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

4. We may at the outset record that an intervener may, with permission of the Court, contest the proceeding filed before this Court. However, the only right of the intervener is that of hearing in opposition, if permitted. The intervener has no right to relief in the proceeding; nor the intervener has a right to prefer appeal. In the present case, although the appellant had, pending C.W.J.C. No.16552 of 2009, filed Interlocutory Application No.8154 of 2010 for permission to intervene in the proceeding, the said application was not allowed. Thus, the appellant had not been given permission to contest the proceeding before the learned single Judge. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the present Appeal by the intervener is not maintainable. We may also note that the respondent State Government has not challenged the impugned judgment and order in appeal.

5. Nevertheless, as we have heard the matter at length, the matter at issue being of considerable importance, we decide the same on merits.

6. The respondent no.1, the petitioner, was granted licence under the Public Distribution System to run a fair price shop at Village-Sagauna Utari, P.S.-Rajnagar, District-Madhubani. Pursuant to several complaints received against the petitioner, some from the present appellant also, on 2nd May 2008, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani issued a notice upon the petitioner calling upon him to explain the complaints received against him and to show cause why his licence should not be suspended or cancelled. The said notice was replied to by the petitioner (date is not disclosed). In the meantime, under order dated 10th June 2008, the licence of the petitioner was suspended (copy has not been brought on record). On receipt of the said reply the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Madhubani, on 2nd September 2008, informed the petitioner that his explanation was not acceptable and to show cause why for the alleged irregularities his licence should not be cancelled. The said notice too was replied by the petitioner. After receipt of the said reply, under order dated 6th September 2008, the licence to run the fair price shop granted to the petitioner was cancelled. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Collector, Madhubani in Appeal No.66/08-09. The Collector, Madhubani dismissed the said appeal on 21st July 2009. Therefore, the writ Petition.

7. According to the petitioner, the complaints made against him were uncalled for. The complaints were made by the appellant or at the instigation of the appellant on account of business rivalry, for ulterior purpose. Further, the petitioner having been subjected to punishment of suspension of licence, he cannot be made to suffer the punishment of cancellation also for the same set of alleged breach of terms and conditions of licence.

8. The writ petition has been allowed by the learned single Judge on the sole ground that the licence once was suspended, the licensing authority had no power to cancel the same. The learned single Judge relied upon the Bihar Trade Article (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1984 Order”) and on the Central Government Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2001 Order”). The learned single Judge has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Pradhuman Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No.6966 of 2008 decided on 14th July 2010).

9. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant-intervener has preferred