IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12732 of 2010
BIMAL KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE BHARAT BHUSHAN SINGH
R/O VILL MIHIRPUR, P.O.KADRACHAK,P.S.SHAMBHUJGANJ,
DISTT-BANKA
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OLD
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE COLLECTOR BANKA, DISTT-BANKA
3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BANKA, DISTT-BANKA
with
CWJC No.15597 of 2010
RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE MALOKI YADAV,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHUTHIYAR, PS.- FULLIDUMAR,
DISTRICT- BANKA.
..........PETITIONERS.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OLD
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2.. THE LICENSING AUTHORITY SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER
BANKA, DISTT-BANKA
..........RESPONDENTS.
with
CWJC No.15622 of 2010
UMESH NARAYAN DAS, S/O LATE CHANDRA NARAYAN DAS,
R/O VILAGE- LALUCHAK, WARD NO. 47, P.O & P.S-
ISHAKCHAK, DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR.
..........PETITIONER.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, FOOD
AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OLD
SECRETARIAT, PATNA
2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SADAR BHAGALPUR,
DISTRICT- BHAGALPUR.
..........RESPONDENTS.
-----------
02/ 04.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned for the State of Bihar and its authorities.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners against the orders of suspension of their respective
licenses for running fair price shop under the Public
-2-
Distribution System.
3. Grievance of the petitioners is that respondents-
authorities are continuing the suspension of their respective
licences beyond the period of ninety days.
4. Although learned counsel for the respondents
vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners, 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 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘ the
Bihar Control Order of 2001’ for the sake of brevity )
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 ( Licenses Unification)
Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bihar licensing
Order of 1984’ for the sake of brevity ) provided that the
license 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 Judgments 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 Pradhuman
Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar and Others( C.W.J.C No.
6966 of 2008 and other cases) decided on 14.07.2010.
5. In the said circumstances, these writ petitions
are allowed with a direction/observation that the orders of
respondents-authorities concerned suspending respective
-3-
licenses of the petitioners would be limited to ninety days only
from the date of suspension, whereafter the respective orders of
suspension of the licenses of the petitioners would cease to
have any legal effect.
Ranjan (S.N. Hussain, J.)