Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 33 (GAU)

Lalmuanpuii v. State of Mizoram

2009-01-18

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. for the State respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.1.2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl West, by which the petitioner's appointment as Fair Price Shop Retailer has been cancelled w.e.f. 31.1.2008 and in her place one Pi Sanghminhtangi, W/o Zothanpara, Bungkawn, respondent No. 4 was appointed. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop (Retailer) for a period of 2 years from the date of her appointment till 31.7.2009 vide order issued under Memo No. B.15015/6/200l/DCSO(W) dated 30.7.2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl. On the strength this appointment order, the petitioner has been discharging her function and duties of a retailer of Fair Price Shop at Bungkawn-1, Aizawl. It is also her case that she has been issued Licence for dealing with control items under the provision of Mizoram Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) order, 1987. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no complaint against the petitioner in discharging her functions and duties as Retailer of Fair Price Shop but her appointment was cancelled by the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 without serving any notice on her at the behest of some political/vested interest to accommodate the private respondent No. 4 which, according to Learned Counsel, is apparent from the order itself wherein it is stated that the cancellation order has been issued as per instruction of Private Secretary to Minister, FCS & CA etc. vide his U.O. No. MOS.13/FCS & CA/2006/QUE dated 29.1.2008. According to Mr. C. Lalramzauva, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued in an arbitrary manner in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed. 3. Relying on the affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. submits that the petitioner was granted Licence for Retailership only up to 31.12.2008 and therefore she cannot claim continuation of her Retailership beyond 31.12.2008. It is also submitted that the Licence for Retailership is not given for a period of 2 years at a time. 1, 2 and 3, Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G.A. submits that the petitioner was granted Licence for Retailership only up to 31.12.2008 and therefore she cannot claim continuation of her Retailership beyond 31.12.2008. It is also submitted that the Licence for Retailership is not given for a period of 2 years at a time. Such Licence for Retailership is initially given for a period of 5 months only and the same may be extended for another year and as such there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in terminating the petitioners Retailership. 4. I have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents and found that it is not accompanied by any document to show that the petitioner was appointed as retailer for a period of 5 months or to show that the Retailership cannot be appointed for a period of 2 years a time. There is no specific denial in the affidavit-in-opposition that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 so as to the afford her an opportunity of hearing. 5. There is also no specific denial to the allegation made in para 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner's appointment as retailer was cancelled for the sole purpose of accommodating the private respondent No. 4 at the instance of some vested interest. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Fair Price Shop Retailer vide order dated 30.7.2007 for a period of 2 years from the date of appointment till 31.12009. The impugned order was issued on 30.1.2008 i.e., before the expiry of aforesaid period of the appointment with a specific direction in the impugned order itself that the respondent No. 4 should be appointed in place of the petitioner. There is no indication in the impugned order that the petitioner's appointment was cancelled due to violation of certain terms and conditions detailed in the appointment order or violation of any rules under the Mizoram Trade Articles Licensing and control order, 1987. There is no indication in the impugned order that the petitioner's appointment was cancelled due to violation of certain terms and conditions detailed in the appointment order or violation of any rules under the Mizoram Trade Articles Licensing and control order, 1987. Had there been any violation of any terms and conditions laid down in the appointment order or the aforesaid Licensing and control order, the petitioner is entitled to have a chance to explain her conduct and she would have been accorded with chance to defend herself. Since there is no denial in the affidavit-in-opposition that no show-cause notice was issued before the impugned order was passed, it can be said the respondent authorities have violated the basic principles of natural justice and any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice behind the back of the affected parties, namely the petitioner, such order cannot stand the scrutiny of law and as such the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 is not sustainable under the law. More over in the impugned order itself it is clearly mentioned that it was issued as per instruction of the Private Secretary to Minister, FCS & CA etc. to accommodate the respondent No. 4, for some reasons known only to the respondent authorities to the deprivation of the petitioner. It is a clear case where the whims of the person in power have played the decisive role in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner without observing the principle of natural justice and the fair play in action. In view of the above discussion and findings, the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside accordingly. Thus, this petition stands allowed. 7. This Court vide order dated 6.2.2008, at the time of issuance of Rule, passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 30.1.2008 and by virtue of this order, the petitioner has been running the Retailer Shop till today and as such I pass no order as to cost. Petition allowed.