- (1.) HEARD Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the Respondent -State.
(2.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for quashing the Memo No. 275/Aa, dated 31.07.2006 (Annexure -1), passed by the Licensing Authority -cum -Sub -Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, whereby, the petitioner's license bearing No. 2/Bagh/96 granted under the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 for the P.D.S. shop, has been put under suspension with immediate effect. As it appears from the submissions and the pleadings of the petitioner, a Truck bearing Registration No. WB -15 A -2764 loaded with the 35 drums of Kerosene oil, was intercepted. It also transpires that the name of the present petitioner alongwith the names of five other P.D.S. dealers was displayed on the drums. On the allegation that they have violated the conditions of license by indulging in black marketing of Kerosene oil, a criminal proceeding was initiated against them including the petitioner, which as per the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is still pending.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that having placed the petitioner's license bearing No. 2/Bagh/96, under suspension, by order dated 31.07.2006, no decision on the same was taken within the period of 90 days, stipulated under Clause 11 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 and in absence of any decision upon the order of suspension, within the period stipulated, it has to be deemed that order of suspension stands automatically cancelled after expiry of the mandatory period of 90 days. Referring in this context to an order passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of the coaccused, Bhairav Kumar V/s. The State of Jharkhand & Another vide W.P. (C) No. 2878 of 2007 and in the case of another co -accused Dhani Ram Rajak V/s. The State of Jharkhand & Another vide W.P. (C) No. 4387 of 2007, learned counsel submits that in both the above applications, the facts being one and the same, as in the present case, the Court after considering the Rules, had declared that the impugned Annexure -1, has lost its force after lapse of the period of 90 days and the same is deemed to be vacated.;