ORDER : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. 2. This instant intra-court appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, directed against the order/judgment dated 23.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4326 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been disposed of extending liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned District Supply Officer along with a representation for redressal of her grievance, in terms thereof, the District Supply Officer, was directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order after giving opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case, which require to be referred herein, read hereunder as : The writ petitioner was running a shop under the Public Distribution System, against whom an F.I.R was instituted being Chouparan P.S. Case No.185 of 2014, alleging inter alia that on 10.11.2014, the Block Supply Officer, Chouparan received a telephonic information from Sub-Divisional Officer, Barhi that in the village Nagwa, Panchayat Bahera, the villagers have caught hold two vehicles loaded with rice and parked in front of the shop of the writ petitioner. The villagers also disclosed that in the night of 09.11.2014 the materials were being uploaded and on enquiry it was known to the villagers that the rice of Public Distribution System was unloaded in the shop of the writ petitioner. It was also found that total 98 bags of rice (47.46 quintals), out of which 7 bags sewed by hand and 91 bags sewed by machine were found. Likewise, the bags of other food grain articles were found, which was seized and a confiscation proceeding had been instituted. The respondents had come out with an order dated 12.11.2014 as contained in Memo No.249, whereby and whereudner the licence of the writ petitioner was suspended with immediate effect on the basis of institution of the first information report and an explanation was sought, as to why her licence be not cancelled. The respondents had come out with an order dated 12.11.2014 as contained in Memo No.249, whereby and whereudner the licence of the writ petitioner was suspended with immediate effect on the basis of institution of the first information report and an explanation was sought, as to why her licence be not cancelled. The writ petitioner submitted her reply on 26.11.2014, as would appear from Annexure-2, but no decision being taken, the appellant filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4326 of 2016 before this Court for the following reliefs: “(i) To quash/set aside the order contained in memo no.249 dated 12.11.2014 issued under the pen and signature of respondent no.3, whereby and whereudner, the public distribution system dealership of the petitioner has been suspended. (ii) During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to continue as Public Distribution System dealership in Village-Nagwa, Panchayat-Bahera, being License No.01/93 in Barhi subdivision, Hazaribagh district. (iii) For any other appropriate relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case as also to do conscionable justice to the petitioner.” The writ Court having considered the fact that since the writ petitioner has already submitted reply to the jurisdiction of the show cause notice issuing authority and therefore, declined to quash the impugned order, however, liberty was reserved to the writ petitioner to appear before the District Supply Officer, who was directed to look into the grievance of the writ petitioner which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 4. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that once the reply in terms of the show cause notice dated 12.11.2014 has been submitted, it was the onerous duty of the concerned respondent to decide it by taking decision either way and he could not have kept the matter pending taking into consideration the fact that the licence of the writ petitioner was suspended. It has further been argued by making reference of Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses, Unification and Control) Orders, 1984, whereby and whereunder it has been provided that the cancellation of licence will be for a period not exceeding 90 days and as such, according to the learned counsel the order of suspension having been passed on 12.11.2014, hence the order of suspension in view of the provision of Clause 11 (2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses, Unification and Control) Orders, 1984 has lost its force and in consequence, direction may be issued to the competent authority to carry out the business in terms of the licence which has been suspended vide order dated 12.11.2014. 5. Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned AAG-II assisted by Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned S.C (Mines) III for the respondents has not disputed the legal position, so far as it relates to the provision under Clause 11(2) of the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses, Unification and Control) Orders, 1984. However, he has defended the impugned order on the ground that the writ petitioner, since has submitted reply to the jurisdiction of the show cause issuing competent authority, therefore, the learned Single Judge is right in passing an order giving liberty to the writ petitioner to approach before the District Supply Officer to look into the grievance, cannot be said to be at fault. 6. 6. As has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 known as Jharkhand Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2017 which has been implemented by way of gazette notification, the provision of licence unification order after commencement of the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 has been implemented in the year 2017 and as such, the applicable order for consideration of the issue involved in this case would be the Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses, Unification and Control) Orders, 1984, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Control Order’, which contains the provision as contained under Clause 11, which reads hereunder as: “11.Suspension and cancellation of licence.-(1) if any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. (2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Such suspension shall be limited only to those trade articles regarding which contravention has been made by the licensee.” It is evident from the provision as contained under Clause 11(1) which contains a provision that in case any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 his licence may be cancelled or suspended with regard to one or more trade articles by an order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. Sub clause 2 thereof, contains the provision that before cancellation under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of proceedings of cancellation of licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. Thus, it is evident that the suspension of licence under Clause 11 is only for an interim period of 90 days and not beyond that, the consequence would be that the licensee will be at liberty to carry out his business from the 91st day. 7. The issue about extension of the period of suspension beyond the period of 90 days has been considered by the Patna High Court in the case of Punsraj Begawani & Another vs. The State of Bihar & Another (SB) reported in 1987 PLJR 1150 , wherein it has been laid down that the licensing authority cannot pass an order extending the suspension of a licence beyond 90 days on the ground that a criminal prosecution is pending against the licensee. Further, it has been held in the case of M/s Yugal Kishore Rastogi vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (DB) reported in 1988 PLJR 571 that suspension of a licence can be made only up to a period of 90 days. An order suspending licence until the disposal of confiscation proceeding launched against the licensee cannot have any legal effect after the period of ninety days prescribed under law. 8. The contention has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State that since in this case a criminal case has been instituted and a confiscation proceeding under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act has been initiated, therefore, the order of suspension may not be interfered with. But, as has been held by the Patna High Court in the case of Punsraj Begawani vs. State of Bihar (supra) and M/s Yugal Kishore Rastogi vs. State of Bihar (supra), the argument advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the State is contrary to the statutory provision as because the order of suspension in contemplation of a proceeding for cancellation of licence under Clause 11(2) of the Control Order cannot be allowed to be extended on or after the period of 90 days. Let it be noted here that learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has not disputed that the suspension order could be deemed and have been passed under Clause 11(2) of the Control Order. The facts of the case in hand is that the order of suspension was passed on 12.11.2014, in pursuance thereof, the response had been submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer, Barhi, but when no decision was taken, the writ petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition, however, the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the order dated 12.11.2014 on the pretext that the reply had already been submitted and liberty to represent the grievance before the District Supply Officer had been granted, who in turn has been directed to look into the grievance, therefore, the fact which is not in dispute herein is that the writ petitioner has already submitted reply before the licensing authority, however, no decision has been taken on the issue as to whether the order of suspension under Clause 11(2) can continue beyond the period of 90 days though the order of suspension was challenged. 9. This Court, after considering the provision of Clause 11(2) coupled with the position of law settled by the Patna High Court as referred herein above, are of the view that the order of interim suspension dated 12.11.2014 cannot be allowed to be stretched beyond the period of 90 days and as such, we are of the view that the order of interim suspension of licence being Licence No.01/1993 stood revoked after completion of period of 90 (Ninety) days. However, we are not interfering with the issue on merit as the writ petitioner has already approached before the competent authority which would appear from the impugned order and as such, the competent authority is required to take a decision in accordance with law. Since the order of suspension is of 12.11.2014, already about 4 and ½ years have been elapsed, therefore, we deem it fit and proper to direct the competent authority to take a conscious decision on merit of the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance with law, however, in view of suspension order has lost its efficacy, the PDS Shop would be entitled for supplies till a final decision is taken on the issue of cancellation of licence. 10. 10. The instant appeal accordingly disposed of, with the aforesaid direction.