Order Heard the parties. 2. Though today petition for grant of interim relief has been placed for consideration but both the parties agreed that the main writ application itself should be heard on the point of admission and same be finally disposed of. 3. It has been stated that a counter affidavit was filed in this case on behalf of State on 3.8.1998, but the same is not there on record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State is permitted to file a copy of the said counter affidavit, on the basis of which counter affidavit filed on behalf of State is reconstructed. 4. The writ application has been filed for quashing order dated 2.4.1998, passed by Labour Commissioner, Bihar, contained in annexure 6, whereby the petitioner has been suspended on the sale ground that a criminal case bearing no. 6C of 1986 is pending before Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. It appears that the said case was instituted against the petitioner in the year 1988 and cognizance was taken therein. Thereafter in connection with the said case, the petitioner reminded in jail from 25.3.1991 to 6.4.1991, on account of which by order dated 2.7.1991 contained in annexure 4, passed by Labour Commissioner, respondent no. 2, the petitioner was suspended during the aforesaid period. 6. From the aforesaid facts, it becomes clear that factum of pendency of the aforesaid criminal case was within the knowledge of respondent no. 2, but still he did not pass any order of suspension for a period of seven years and only after expiry of seven years from that date on 2.4.1998, the impugned order of suspension has been passed. According to the writ petitioner, in the said criminal case on behalf of the complainant all the witnesses were examined by the year 1996 and in the year 1997 a prayer was made for examination of 25 more witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, but the prayer was turned down. Thereafter the matter was brought to this court, but the said order has been upheld by this Court in the year 1997. According to the petitioner, the trial court is not proceeding with further hearing of the case. 7. Thereafter the matter was brought to this court, but the said order has been upheld by this Court in the year 1997. According to the petitioner, the trial court is not proceeding with further hearing of the case. 7. In my view, in view of the aforesaid facts there can be absolutely no justification for passing the order of suspension after expiry of a period of seven years from the date of passing of earlier order of suspension referred to above specially when cognizance was taken in the case in hand on 20.7.1988. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ application is allowed and order contained in annexure 6, is hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is disposed of.