IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4062 of 2009 ***** 1. Purushotam Maharaj @ Purushotam Kumar Sharma, son of Late Kedar Maharaj, resident of village- Dighwara, P.O. & P.S. Dighwara, District-Saran, Partner of M/s Kedar Maharaj, Wholesale Distributor of SKO, Chapra. 2. Prahlad Sharma, son of Late Kedar Maharaj, resident of village- Dighwara, P.O. & P.S. Dighwara, District-Saran, Proprietor & Partner of M/s Kedar Maharaj, Wholesale Distributor of SKO, Dighwara & Chapra. …. …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Food & Consumer Protection, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Director, Food & Consumer Protection, Saran Division, Chapra. 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran. 5. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Saran, Chapra. 6. The Sub Divisional officer, Sadar Madhaura & Sonepur, Saran. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 20.7.2009. The short contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the wholesale Kerosene license which was issued in favour of the petitioners stood suspended vide order dated 15th September, 2009 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra contained in Annexure-10. Thereafter nothing has come to be done by the respondents to revoke the said suspension in view of the provisions contained in the new amendment which has come about in the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001. In terms of Order 7(v) suspension of a license can hold for a maximum period of 90 days. Within the period of suspension the records relating to suspension of the license have to be forwarded to the District Level Selection Committee and they have to take an appropriate decision within the time frame but nothing has been indicated that anything of the kind has been done till date. It is also contended that the law on this issue is clear that a - 2 - suspension of the license will not subsist beyond a period of 90 days and admittedly on the face on the record that period has elapsed, therefore, the impugned order needs to be interfered or at least declared to have lost its force. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the settled law on this issue the order dated 15th September, 2008 contained in Annexure-10 stands quashed as more than 90 days has elapsed. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No separate order is required to be passed on the I.A. No. 4066 of 2009. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)