IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14320 of 2008 M/s Ramswarath Sah, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali, through its Proprietor Shiv Shankar Sah, S/o- Late Ram Khelawan Sah, Resident of Bhagwanpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Vaishali. ……………….Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Vaishali. 3. Block Supply Officer, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali. ……………… Respondents. ----------- 03 22.01.2009 The petitioner is agreed by order dated 09.12.2006 of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Vaishali whereby and whereunder his wholesale licence for dealing in Kerosene oil granted under the provisions of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 has been suspended. The ground for suspension is evident from the order as communicated to the petitioner is that for various derelictions a first information report has been lodged against the petitioner on 06.12.2006, as such, his licence being Licence No. 21 of 1985 was being suspended with immediate effect. Mr. N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the writ petition submits that in view of the Clause 11 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order even if licence is suspended as an interim measure the suspension cannot continue beyond 90 days, whereafter the suspension ipso facto lapses from the order itself. It is clear that suspension was ordered merely on the ground of pendency of criminal case, as an interim measure and that being so the suspension could not have continued beyond 90 days. Mr. Agrawal further submits that till date any final order in the proceedings even 2 passed and even though two years have elapsed licence and business remain suspended. Having considered the matter and in view of the statutory provisions, as contained in Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, the suspension cannot be permitted to continue. The suspension automatically stood revoked on expiry of 90 days from the date when the same was issued. Thus, being the position, the impugned order cannot continue to operate and is held so. Petitioner would be free to transact his business in normal course and the Licensing Authority would not treat the petitioner to be a suspended licensee subject to whatever final order that may be passed. Any adverse communication would also lose force accordingly and supply to the petitioner may be resumed. With these observations and directions, the writ petition itself disposed of. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)