IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5468 of 2011 Upendra Mishra S/o Late Brahmdeo Mishra, resident of Bahera Jahidpur Naanpur; District-Sitamarhi. ….. Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Department of Food & Consumer Affairs, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Sitamarhi. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Pupri Division, Sitamarhi. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, A.C. to S. C. 14. ---------- 05/ 08.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 01.09.2010 bearing Reference No.742 issued by the Sub-Divisional officer, Pupri by which the licence of the petitioner under Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has been suspended for alleged violation of the Rules of the said Order and also for directing the authorities to restore his licence in the light of Rule 7(v) read with Rule 7(iii) of the said Order and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. It is not in dispute that no criminal case has been filed against the petitioner for any offences punishable under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent-authority is continuing the suspension of his licence beyond the period of ninety days. 4. Although learned counsel for the respondents - 2 - vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 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 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, the licence of the petitioner has remained suspended since 01.09.2010 and 90 days of suspension has concluded by the end of November, 2010. Hence, the suspension of the licence of the petitioner beyond the aforesaid 90 days is absolutely illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law. 6. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the suspension of the petitioner’s licence was legal only till 30.11.2010 and the suspension thereafter is absolutely illegal, perverse and against the settled principles of law. The - 3 - authorities are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner since 01.12.2010 and take steps accordingly. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)