IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8057 of 2005 CHATURI SAH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS With CWJC No.10203 of 2006 RAM NAGINA CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 28.08.2008 Both the writ applications arise out of common orders and therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present matter stands settled by an order dated 9.8.2006 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 15693/2004 (Tej Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others). It is stated that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj dated 17.11.2000, as contained in Annexure-4 in each case, is exactly the same as that of the other 14 dealers against whom a common seizure was made and similar cases were instituted. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Patna Division in E.C. Revision Nos. 64/2001 in CWJC No. 8057/2005 and 63/ 2001 in CWJC No. 10203/2006 is a common order along with the other 14 2 revision cases of the other dealers and similarly the order dated 3.6.2001 passed by the Collector, Rohtas in Supply Appeal No. 12/2001 in CWJC No. 8057/2005 and 10/2001 in CWJC No. 10203/2006 is a common order along with other 14 appeal cases filed by other 14 affected dealers and the said appellate and revisional orders have already been quashed with respect to the said petitioner, Tej Narayan Singh and some other dealers who had approached this Court. For the reasons given in the order dated 9.8.2006 passed in CWJC No. 15693/2004, both the writ applications are allowed and the impugned orders dated 26.10.2004, 3.6.2001 and 17.11.2000 passed respectively by the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, the Collector, Rohtas and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj are quashed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)