IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10521 of 2009 ***** Raj Kumar Paswan son of Late Nageshwar Pawan, resident of village- Sagahi, P.O. Rajan, P.S. Gurua, District-Gaya. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sherghti, Distt.Gaya. 4. The Block Supply Officer, Gurua, Distt. Gaya. …. …. Respondents ----------- 2. 24.8.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Way back vide order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sherghati acting as the licensing authority suspended the license of the petitioner with immediate effect. It is a categorical statement of the petitioner that nothing has been done after passing the suspension order against him. To make things worse for him an appeal preferred by him under Section 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order before the District Magistrate has not yet been registered for the last one year. This has left the petitioner remediless and has compelled him to approach this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is already well settled by several decisions of this Court that a suspension cannot be allowed to operate for an indefinite period as a measure of punishment, the order of suspension must be followed-up by a consequential final order one way or the other. Not only this, the Court is quite concerned and alarmed to the statement which has been made by the petitioner that a statutory appeal filed by him before the Collector has - 2 - not yet been registered for almost a year leave alone being heard even once. In absence of any counter affidavit the Court would not like to comment on the issue in the present writ application but the Court would surely direct the District Magistrate, Gaya to look into this matter, verify the position to at least know what is going on within his domain of which he is the statutory appellate authority. If what has been stated by the petitioner is correct then all is not well with the functioning at the level of the appellate authority. Some more serious re-look is required to set the things in order. Since the suspension order has remained into effect since 13.12.2006 the normal period for such suspension has been statutorily held to be 90 days but since there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner the District Magistrate, Gaya is hereby directed to hear the appeal of the petitioner and decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of communication/production of a copy of this order. He would also be obliged to look into such other appeals which are pending before him for many a years and have not been adjudicated upon as yet. This writ application is disposed of with above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)