IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7776 of 2009 SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR &ORS ----------- 2 10.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. By virtue of the order dated 31.10.2008 contained in annexure-1 the Sub- Divisional Officer, Jehanabad decided to suspend the P.D.S. licence of the petitioner for the reasons indicated therein. Petitioner has filed the writ on a very limited question stating that despite the mandatory provisions of law in this regard which has been promulgated by the State of Bihar in its notification dated 15th February, 2007 while amending the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 that a licence under Clause -7(V) can remain suspended for a maximum period of 90 days. Thereafter certain requirements are to be done. Petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph-11 of the writ application that after suspension order the authorities have gone into hybernation and nothing in terms of the statute has been done in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision rendered in the case of Rama Shankar Ram vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in BBCJ 2006 (3) 233 where a Bench of this Court categorically held that on expiry of the period of 90 days the suspension order has to be revoked. With the material being available on the face of the record and the submission which has been made in the writ - 2 - application the petitioner has made out a case for interference. Suspension order dated 31.10.2008 contained in annexure-1 in so far as relates to this petitioner stands quashed in view of the fact that it has lost its validity and the period of enforcement since 90 days has already elapsed on the face of the record. This writ application stands allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)