JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 1-4 are represented by the learned Govt. advocate Mr. P.S. Deka. The 5th respondent despite service of notice, has not entered appearance. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a retail dealer for distribution of PDS items at Kanjikhowa/Kajanibari village under the wholesaler M/s. Dinjoy Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samity Limited (respondent no. 5). The PDS licence was renewed regularly until the same was suspended on 16.12.2010 (Annexure-4) by the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs (FCS & CA), Dibrugarh. The suspension of licence was ordered on the basis of the enquiry report dated 16.11.2010, where the Inspector, FCS & CA, Chabua had referred to various malpractices of the licencee including diversion of the PDS/TPDS commodities and also charging of higher price, from the attached consumers. 3. The legality of the suspension of licence ordered under Clause 15(1) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the "1982 Order") is challenged on the ground that the licencee was denied due opportunity before he was penalized. Mr. S. Baruah, the learned counsel submits that the copy of the Inspector's enquiry report was never furnished and hearing was not afforded to the licencee to present his version on the allegation. The counsel projects that supply of PDS articles by the wholesaler was drastically curtailed since August, 2010 and accordingly Mr. Baruah submits that dissatisfaction of the consumers cannot be attributed only to the conduct of the retail agent. 4. On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Govt. advocate refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3 on 07.06.2011 to project that multiple complaints were received from the consumers attached with the petitioner and this necessitated the wholesaler i.e. M/s Dinjoy Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samity Ltd. to stop allotment of articles to the retail agent for a period of 3 months, through the resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of the respondent no. 5 on 02.08.2010. It is further submitted that the allegations against the licencee were received from large groups of consumers and those could not have been brushed aside. 5. 5 on 02.08.2010. It is further submitted that the allegations against the licencee were received from large groups of consumers and those could not have been brushed aside. 5. What is discernible here is that the allegations against licencee do not relate to non-delivery of PDS articles, but diversion of the allotted PDS/TPDS commodities and also charging of higher price from the consumers for the notified articles. These allegations are unrelated to curtailment of supply by the wholesaler. Moreover if the allegations are correct, the licencee has definitely breached the terms and conditions of the licence, issued under the 1982 Order. 6. But at the same time, the authorities had arranged for an enquiry by the Inspector of the FCS & CA and the suspension order was passed on the basis of the Inspector's enquiry report dated 16.11.2010. But the investigation was made in absentia and the enquiry report was not furnished to the licencee. Therefore, breach of the principles of the audi alteram partem is apparent in the present case. 7. When suspension of licence is ordered under Clause 15(1), the period of suspension cannot exceed 90 days, under sub-clause (2) of Clause 15 of the 1982 Order and therefore the action taken under Clause 15(1) are of limited time frame. But when cancellation of licence can be permanent but due opportunity is mandated under Clause 15(2) of the 1982 Order. 8. The impugned suspension order was kept in abeyance by this Court on 09.02.2011. But when suspension cannot be continued for an indefinite period, the licence should either be made operational or steps may be taken for cancellation of licence through due process in appropriate cases, after affording reasonable opportunity to the affected licencee. 9. Considering the above, the suspension of licence ordered on 16.12.2010 (Annexure-4) by the Deputy Director, FCS & CA, Dibrugarh is declared to have spent its force under-Clause 15(2) of the 1982 Order. But this verdict will not foreclose the option of the authorities to cancel the licence, if they wish to proceed further, in view of the allegations made against the licencee. But before penal action is taken, reasonable opportunity must be provided to the petitioner by way of show-cause notice and furnishing the enquiry report. It is ordered accordingly. 10. With the above order, the case stands disposed of in the manner indicated. No cost.