Gauhati High Court
Hem Bahadur Newar Alias Hem Bahadur ... vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 15 March, 2019
Author: Arup Kumar Goswami
Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010043352019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 1431/2019
1:HEM BAHADUR NEWAR ALIAS HEM BAHADUR PRADHAN
S/O LATE MATILAL NEWAR, AGENT BARUAH SAMABAY SAMITTEE
LTD.,WARD NO. 1, VILLAGE BOGIBIL CHAULKHOWA UNDER BOGIBIL
VILLAGE PANCHAYAT, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM
2: LAL BAHADUR PRADHAN
S/O OF SHRI HEM BAHADUR NEWAR ALIAS HEM BAHADUR PRDHAN
WARD NO. 1
VILLAGE BOGIBIL CHAULKHOWA UNDER BOGIBIL VILLAGE
PANCHAYAT
DIST. DIBRUGARH
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER/SECRETARY, DEPPT. OF FOOD
AND CIVIL SUPPLY, GOVT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR
DEPTT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
GOVT OF ASSAM
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
5:THE SUB INSPECTOR
FOON AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI
ORDER
15.03.2019 Heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents.
The petitioners are the joint licence holders of fair price shop No.Barbarua-22. According to the petitioners, the licence was granted in the year 1988. On the basis of an enquiry report dated 04.04.2018, the licence of the petitioners was suspended by the Deputy Director (I/C) and Licensing Authority, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Dibrugarh, under Clause 15(1) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, for short, 1982 Order, on the ground of violation of provisions of Clause 26 of the 1982 Order read with licensing condition 4 and 8(1) of the said Order as well as Clause 10(4)(i) of the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015. The allegation against the petitioners as indicated in the enquiry report is that less quantity of rice than the actual entitlement was given to the consumers.
On 19.06.2018, show-cause notice was issued asking the petitioner No.1 to show-cause as to why his licence shall not be cancelled. The petitioner No.1 responded to the said notice vide his letter dated 22.06.2018. It appears that one more enquiry was conducted against the petitioners and an enquiry report dated 09.07.2018 was submitted. Based on the said report, another show-cause notice dated 03.08.2018 was issued to show-cause as to why the licence shall not be cancelled.
It appears that the petitioner No.1 had submitted his show-cause reply on 08.08.2018. The Page No.# 3/3 show-cause reply, however, is not annexed to the writ petition. By letter dated 07.09.2018 the petitioners were asked to appear for personal hearing. One more notice was given to the petitioners on 05.10.2018 requiring the petitioners to show-cause. The petitioner No.1 was again called for personal hearing on 08.11.2018 and thereafter again on 14.11.2018. However, the matter had not proceeded further.
It is in this background, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for setting aside the suspension order dated 11.06.2018.
Having regard to the factual matrix as indicated herein above, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice will be sub-served if a writ of mandamus is issued to the licencing authority to conclude the proceedings drawn up against the petitioners within a period of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
The petitioners are permitted to produce the certified copy of this order before the licencing authority for doing the needful in terms of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant