IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14955 of 2009 1. SARYUG RAI S/O LATE KHEDU RAI VILL.- RAGHUBAR CHHAPRA @ RAGHUWAR CHHAPRA, P.S.- SARAIYA, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THOUGH COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LICENSING AUTHORITY MUZAFFARPUR (WEST), MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER MUZAFFARPUR 6. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER SARAIYA, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2 19.1.2010 Petitioner is a dealer under public Distribution System and challenges the order of Subdivisional Officer-cum- Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur (West), Muzaffarpur dated 27.6.2008, as contained in Annexure 1, by which his license has been suspended. The exercise of power has been done in relation to clause (7) of the Public Distribution System Dealer Licensing Order, 2007 issued with reference to Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 issued by the Central Government. Without going into other controversy if one refers to clause (7) of the Bihar Order of the year 2007, it clearly contemplates suspension not beyond a period of ninety days. Learned counsel for the State points out that the suspension has been done because petitioner is involved in a criminal case. It is also a matter of record that criminal case as against the petitioner was instituted as far back as in 1997 and the license has 2 been renewed thereafter. Bihar Order came into force only in 2007 i.e. 10 years after the criminal case . That, in my view, cannot be made a ground for suspending the license in terms of clause (7) of the Bihar Order. Further suspending the license has to be proceeded by a notice in this regard. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice has been issued. For all the aforesaid reasons, the order of Sub- divisional Officer-cum- Licensing Authority, Muzaffarpur(west),Muzaffarpur, dated 27.6.2008 ,suspending the petitioner’s license cannot be sustained and the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1, is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is thus allowed. Singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)