IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8678 of 2009 ***** Satyendra Narayan Singh, son of Sri Rameshwar Singh, resident of village- Nanauri, P.O.- Nemdarganj, P.S.-Akbarpur, District-Nawadah. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawadah. 3. The Sub Divisional officer, Rajauli (Distt.-Nawadah). 4. The Block Supply Officer, Akbarpur Block, P.S.-Akbarpur, District-Nawadah. …. …. Respondents WITH CWJC No.8746 of 2009 ***** Ram Nandan Prasad @ Ramanand Prasad, son of Late Ragho Singh, resident of village- Bardo, P.O.-Nemdarganj, P.S.-Akbarpur, District-Nawadah. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nawadah. 3. The Sub Divisional officer, Rajauli (Distt.-Nawadah). 4. The Block Supply Officer, Akbarpur Block, P.S.-Akbarpur, District-Nawadah. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate (In both cases) For the State : Mr. Suresh Kumar, Assistant (in CWJC 8678/09) Counsel to Standing Counsel-VII For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, Assistant (in CWJC 8746/09) Counsel to Standing Counsel-V ----------- 2. 28.7.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. Since common question of law has been raised in both the writ applications, therefore, both the writ applications are being heard together and disposed of by a common order. In C.W.J.C. No. 8678 of 2009 the impugned order is Anenxure-3 whereas in C.W.J.C. No. 8746 of 2009 the impugned order is Annexure-2. By the two impugned orders the licensing authority i.e. Sub - 2 - Divisional officer, Rajauli has suspended the license of the two petitioners for certain allegations which have been made in the impugned order. Irrespective of the ground or the reason which has been indicated in the impugned orders submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the law is well settled on this issue that since suspension cannot be used as a way of punishment and a suspension order even in the Unification Order will continue only for about 90 days, the suspension of the licenses of these two petitioners which are still operational since 23.7.2006 deserve to be interfered with. It is also submitted that no follow-up action has been taken thereafter and, therefore, based on the ratio laid down in the case of Rajendra Rishideo v. State of Bihar, 2009(2) PLJR 348 and Surendra Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 2007(4) PLJR 670, the two orders needs to be quashed. Learned counsel for the State has not disputed with the proposition of law which has been laid down. If that being so then the continuance of the suspension order contained in Annexure-3 and 2 respectively stand quashed. The writ applications are allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)