IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15689 of 2010 BHUSHAN BAITHA SON OF LATE DHUP BAITHA, R/O VILLAGE SIHPUR, P.O. AND P.S. MAINATAND, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH)…………PETITIONER . VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICEER, WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, MAINATAND BLOCK, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ………….RESPONDENTS with CWJC No.16051 of 2010 SATYA NARAIN PRASAD SON OF LATE SURAJ PRASAD R/O VILLAGE LIPNI, P.O. PIPARI, P.S. MAINATAND, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH)………….PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, MAINATAND BLOCK, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ……….RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.740 of 2008 JANGBAHADUR RAUT S/O LATE RAJA RAUT, R/O VILLAGE LINE PARSA, P.S. BALTHAR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ……………………………..PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, SIKTA BLOCK, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 5. ASHOK KUMAR @ BECHU SINGH, THE THEN MUKHIYA, SHIKARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT UNDER SIKTA BLOCK, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 6. PHUL KUMARI W/O ASHOK SINGH @ BECHU SINGH, AT PRESENT MUKHIYA, SHIKARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT UNDER SIKTA BLOCK, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN………………………….RESPONDENTS.. - 2 - ----------- 02/ 05.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. These writ petitions are being finally heard and decided at this stage by this common order. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the orders of suspension of their respective licences for running Fair Price Shops. 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 in all these cases vehemently oppose 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 (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity ) provided that the licence 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 judgment 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 case of Pradhuman Chaudhary vs. The - 3 - State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 6966 of 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 passed by the respondents authorities suspending respective licences of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the orders of suspension of the licences of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)