JUDGMENT T.NK. Singh, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.B. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Gogoi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-society as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6. 2. It appears from the record that this writ petition was moved on 30.1.2006 and on the very day, i.e., on 30.1.2006, this Court passed an order for issuing Rule with the condition that hearing of the present writ petition will be taken up in the month of March, 2006. But even after lapse of many months, the respondents have not yet filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Since this matter relates with the distribution of the PDS items, this writ petition cannot be lingered only on the ground that the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondents has not yet been filed. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is taken up for disposal without even the affidavit-in-opposition to be filed by the respondents. 3. Neglecting all the details but the precise facts, the petitioner-society is a society formed by ladies and it has been registered under the Assam Co-operative Societies Act. Admittedly, the Government of Assam framed guidelines for appointment of Secretaries of Women's Multipurpose Cooperative Societies and certain bye-laws which had been circulated under the letter of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, Guwahati in the month of June 1992, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A-1 to the present writ petition. 4. Under the said guidelines circulated under the said letter of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Assam, the Secretary of the Society, i.e., Women's Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, shall be appointed by the Managing Committee from amongst the persons having requisite qualifications and shall be trained as may be prescribed by the Cooperative Societies, Assam. And also since the Women's Co-operative Society had been formed with 100% women members, the Society will be managed by them and the Secretary of the Society shall also be paid remuneration. It is also the further condition of the said guidelines that during the period of probation, the Secretary may be given minimum remuneration of Rs.500 PM and after successful completion of the probation for a year, the Secretary may be given remuneration of Rs.600 per month. It is also the further condition of the said guidelines that during the period of probation, the Secretary may be given minimum remuneration of Rs.500 PM and after successful completion of the probation for a year, the Secretary may be given remuneration of Rs.600 per month. The further case of the petitioner-society is that the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Purnima Nath, was appointed as the Secretary of the petitioner No. 1-Society called "Mornoi Gaon Panchayat Mahila Multipurpose Samabai Samity". 5. After fulfilling all the conditions prescribed in the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, a licence for dealing with the PDS items had been granted by the Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Goalpara, Assam as early as 22.7.94 and the licence was valid upto 31.3.1994. It is said that the terms of the licence had been extended by way of renewal from time to time. 6. After getting the said licence under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, the petitioner-society had been distributing the essential commodities, i.e., PDS items. 7. It is also said that some complaints had been filed against the petitioner-society regarding the distribution of the essential items, i.e. PDS items, under the said licence issued by the competent authority. It is the clear and specific case of the petitioner-society that no competent authority asked the petitioner-society to comment or to show cause against the complaints said to have been filed against the petitioner society. But surprisingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, Assam issued the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 for suspending the licence, i.e., PDS Licence, issued in favour of the petitioner-society. Being aggrieved, by this writ petition, the petitioner-society is assailing the impugned suspension order dated 19.7.2000 on the inter alia grounds that the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 was issued in clear violation of Rule 15 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 inasmuch as (1) no opportunity was given to the petitioner-society before issuing the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 and (2) the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 never speaks the conditions which had been violated by the petitioner-society while distributing or dealing with the essential commodities, i.e., PDS items, in pursuance of the said licence and (3) that the validity of the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 is also expired in terms of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. 8. 8. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-society has strenuously submitted that the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 could have been set aside even on one score that since the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, Assam did not mention the condition(s) or circumstances, which had been violated by the petitioner-society while dealing with the PDS items under the said licence in the impugned orders dated 19.7.2000, it is illegal. In order to substantiate his case, the learned senior counsel has referred to the decision of this Court "Division Bench" in Mamat Chandra Das v. State of Assam and Ors. (1992) 2 GLR 346. This Court in Mamat Chandra Das v. State of Assam and Ors. (supra) held that the Deputy Commissioner had issued the impugned cancellation or suspension of licence without application of mind inasmuch as in the impugned order of suspension of licence, nothing had been mentioned about the condition(s) which had been violated by the concerned licencee. Basing on the ratio laid down in the case of Mamat Chandra Das v. State of Assam and Ors. (supra), the learned senior counsel has strenuously submitted that in the present case also, the Deputy Commissioner, Goalpara, Assam did not apply his mind while issuing the impugned suspension order dated 19.7.2000 inasmuch as in the impugned order itself nothing is mentioned about the terms and conditions said to have been violated by the petitioner-society while dealing with the essential items, i.e., PDS items, in pursuance of the licence issued in their favour. This Court is of the considered view that the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner-society in this regard has force of law. 9. Since Rule 15 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 is required to be discussed in this case, it would be more convenient to quote the rule itself. Accordingly Rule 15 of the said Order, 1982 is quoted hereunder: 15. (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 under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his licence may be cancelled or suspended by any 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 reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings or cancellation of the licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. 10. From the bare perusal of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15, it is clear that no order for cancellation shall be made unless the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings or cancellation of the licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. According to the learned Sr. counsel the life span of the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 would be only for 90 (ninety) days inasmuch as the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 was issued without giving any opportunity of being heard. Even after the lapse of 7 (seven) years from the date of passing of the impugned suspension order, the competent authority has not yet completed the proceedings if there be any for cancellation of the licence, but simply keep the matter pending without taking any follow up action in pursuance of the impugned suspension order dated 19.7.2000, which according to the learned senior counsel is forbidden by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. The learned senior counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the copies of the letters : (1) letter dated 2.8.2005 of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Goalpara requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, Goalpara to withdraw the tagging under the impugned order dated 19.7.2000, (2) and another letter of the Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 30.3.2005 requesting the Secretary Sri Sri Suryagiri S.S. Ltd. for taking necessary steps for allotment of PDS items to the petitioner-society. 11. The learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to give any information about the stage of the enquiry, if any, against the petitioner-society regarding the alleged violation of the condition(s) of the licence in distributing the essential commodities, i.e., PDS items. 12. 11. The learned state counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents is not in a position to give any information about the stage of the enquiry, if any, against the petitioner-society regarding the alleged violation of the condition(s) of the licence in distributing the essential commodities, i.e., PDS items. 12. As discussed above, there is nothing either in the impugned, order dated 19.7.2000 or any document to show the terms and conditions said to have been violated by the petitioner-society. This Court is of the considered view that such being the situation, the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 cannot be allowed to continue in perpetuity. 13. Having regards to the above backgrounds as well as the ratio laid down by this Court in Mamat Chandra Das v. State of Assam and Ors. (supra) and also the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 and the said letters of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Goalpara dated 2.8.2005 and 30.3.2005, this Court is of the considered view that an interference to the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 is called for. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.7.2000 is hereby set aside. The corollary of this order is that the competent authority shall consider for renewal or extension of the licence issued in favour of the petitioner-society in the light of the suggestions made by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies under his letter dated 2.8.2005 and 30.3.2005 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order inasmuch as the matter involves distribution of the PDS items. 14. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.