The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for strict interpretation and enforcement of laws affecting citizens' rights.

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. For the reasons indicated in the limitation application, delay in filing of appeal is condoned.

2. I. A. No. 4901 of 2014 is allowed.

3. Two writ applications came to be filed, seeking identical relief, because it arose from a direction or order passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Food and Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, dated 20.07.2012.

4. The relevant order was letter no. 4547, dated 20th of July, 2012, which was Annexure-5 to the writ application. Only one LPA has been filed in C. W. J. C. No. 21901 of 2012 against the order, dated 28th of October, 2013. By virtue of the impugned order of the writ application, i.e., Annexure-5, all the Collectors of the State were directed to ensure that all the wholesale dealers of Indian Oil Corporation, who were having license for running petrol pump as well as wholesale license for kerosene oil, would not run from the same premises and if the same were being run, they should be ordered to be shifted atleast 2 km apart. The reason for issuance of such a communication of the Principal Secretary of the Department was an instance of adulteration which came to the notice of the department by one such dealer in Bhagalpur.

5. As a follow up to the Annexure-5 of the writ application, a direction was issued by the Collector, Saran at Chapra to the private-respondent on 17.10.2012 to re-locate or else his license would be suspended. Even this order, therefore, became a subject matter of challenge.

6. The Learned Single Judge heard the arguments and came to a considered opinion that the Principal Secretary of the Department, should not issue such a direction, amending the terms and conditions of the license unilaterally, as the reading of the impugned notification does not indicate that this was issued under the orders of the State or under any statutory provision of any of the enactments. The letter is absolutely silent as to under what power and authorities had issued such a direction.

7. The Learned Single Judge took note of the stand of the State emerging from the counter affidavit where a plea was taken that the power for the Principal Secretary flowed from Clause (25) of the Unification Order.

8. The Learned Single Judge has this to say thereafter;

“Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in reply, submits that clause (25) of the Unification Order was not applicable in the case as it empowered the State Government or the Collector or the Licensing Authority to issue directions to any dealer with regard to purchase, sale, disposal, storage or exhibition of the price and stock list of all or any of the trade articles. He submits that the directions in terms of Clause (25) can be issued only within the four corners of the licence and in terms of its conditions. Any direction, purportedly issued under this Clause, amounting to change of any terms and conditions of the licence would therefore be beyond the jurisdiction of the State Government or the Collector or the Licensing Authority. He further submits that the Principal Secretary has not issued the impugned letter on behalf of the Government. His letter shows that it was issued by him from his own level. He further submits that as per subsection (cc) of Section 2 read with sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, any general order has to be published in the official gazette to make it operative. He submits that in any case letter of the Principal Secretary was general in nature. Hence, even if it is assumed that the same was on behalf of the Government, the same had to be published in the official gazette before it could be enforced.

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and having considered the legal provisions, this Court finds that though clause 25 of the Unification Order was not brought to the notice of learned single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.9944 of 2002, but the same does not improve the case of the respondents. Clause (25) of the Unification O