IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16986 of 2010 Upendra Narayan Singh @Upendra Prasad Singh, Son of Sri Mahendra Singh, resident of Village-Baghwa, P.O.-Baghwa, P.S.-Baunshi, District-Banka. …… Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Licensing Authority-cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, District-Banka. …. Respondents. WITH CWJC No.16994 of 2010 Md.Latif Ansari, son of Md. Afsar Ali, resident of village-Kholimob, P.O. Maniyarpur, P.S.-Baunshi, District-Banka. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Licensing Authority-cum- Sub-Divisional Officer, Banka, District-Banka. …. Respondents. WITH CWJC No.17631 of 2010 Gauri Shankar Mishra, son of Late Jangbahadur Mishra, resident of Ward No.4, Murliyachak, P.O.-Chakmahila, P.S.- Sitamarhi, District- Sitamhari. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Food and Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sitamahri Sadar, District- Sitamhari. …. Respondents. WITH CWJC No.17493 of 2010 Anil Kumar Gupta, son of Late Kailash Prasad Gupta, resident of village-Hassanganj, Road P.O. Mirjan Hat, P.S. Mozahidpur, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur, District-Bhagalpur. 4. District Supply Officer, Bhagalpur. 5. Registering Officer (Panan Padadhikari), Town, Bhagalpur. 6. Assistant District Supply Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur. …. Respondents. ----------- 02/ 09.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned - 2 - for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the orders of suspension of their respective licenses for running fair price shop under the Public Distribution System. 3. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents- authorities are continuing the suspension of their respective licences beyond the period of ninety days. 4. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, but law is very clear in this regard. Clause-7 of the Government of Bihar, Food Supply & Commerce Department Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001, notified vide G.S.R.1 dated 20.02.2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Bihar Control Order of 2001’ for the sake of brevity ) specifically provides that suspension is a punishment and it cannot exceed ninety days. Earlier also Sub-clause (ii) of Clause 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles ( Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity ) provided that the license can be suspended for a period not exceeding ninety days and this matter has been settled by a plethora of decisions of this court including the Judgments in case of M/s Yugal Kishore Rastogi Vs The State of Bihar, reported in 1988 PLJR 571 as well as the decision of this court in Pradhuman Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar and Others( C.W.J.C No. 6966 of - 3 - 2008 and other cases) decided on 14.07.2010. 5. In the said circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed with a direction/observation that the orders of respondents-authorities concerned suspending respective licenses of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the respective orders of suspension of the licenses of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)