High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Sugriv Das vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 26 August, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Sugriv Das vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Anr on 26 August, 2010
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                          CWJC No.13820 of 2010
                   Sugriv Das, son of Late Atwari Das, resident of Village-Makhna, P.O.-
                   Baluachak Puraini, P.S.- Jagdishpur, 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/ 26.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the State and its authorities. This writ petition is being

finally heard and decided at this stage at the instance of learned

counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order of suspension of his Fair Price Shop Licence

bearing no.03 of 1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar,

Bhagalpur (respondent no.2) vide memo no.238 dated 08.03.2010

(Annexure-1).

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents-

authorities are continuing the suspension of his licence beyond the

period of ninety days.

4. Although learned counsel for the respondents

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 ( hereinafter referred to as `the Bihar

Control Order of 2001′ for the sake of brevity ) specifically
-2-

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 (hereinafter

referred to as `the Bihar Licensing Order of 1984′ for the sake of

brevity ) 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, this writ petition is

allowed with a direction/observation that the order passed by the

respondent-authority suspending licence of the petitioner would be

limited to ninety days only from the date of suspension, whereafter

the order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner would cease

to have any legal effect.

(S. N. Hussain, J.)

Sunil