IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7516 of 2010 . MD. NIZAMUDDIN S/O LATE PEER ALI MIAN R/O VILL.- MISRAULI, P.S.- BHORE, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 3. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER (SDO), HATHUA, GOPALGANJ 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, GOPALGANJ 5. THE BLOCK SUPPLY OFFICER, BHORE, GOPALGANJ with CWJC No.10023 of 2010 1. CHHOTE LAL PASWAN S/O SRI MUNARIK PASWAN R/O VILL.- DHORHA, P.O. AND P.S.- RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTT.- ARWAL 2. VINOD SHARMA S/O RANJATAN SHARMA R/O VILL., P.O. AND P.S.- RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTT.- ARWAL 3. ANIL KUMAR S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA PASWAN R/O VILL.- SARAUTI, P.O. AND P.S.- RAMPUR CHAURAM, DISTT.- ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR, ARWAL, DISTT.- ARWAL 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ARWAL, DISTT.- ARWAL ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan & Shreekant Labh, Advocates For the State : Mr. N. K. Singh, S.C. VI -------- 02/ 22.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and its authorities. Both these cases have been heard together and are being decided at this stage by this common order. 2. Both 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 2 beyond the period of ninety days. 4. Although learned counsel for the respondents in both the 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 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, both writ petitioners are allowed with a direction/observation that the orders of respondents- authorities concerned suspending respective licences of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter the respective orders of suspension of the licences of the petitioners would cease to have any legal effect. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )