JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a retail dealer for distribution of Public Distribution System (PDS) under Lawkhowa Samabai Samiti Limited and a PDS licence was issued to him for the aforesaid purpose. The licence was suspended by an order dated 20.07.2016 by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, In-charge Kaliabor Sub-division under Clauses 15(1) and 15(2) of Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, for short, 1982 Order. The consumers of the fair price shop of the petitioner were also tagged with fair price shop of one Khagen Sarkar. 3. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the aforesaid order before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon under Clause 29(1) of the 1982 Order. 4. A show-cause notice dated 29.09.2016 was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Civil (Kaliabor) directing the petitioner to show-cause within 7 days as to why the PDS retail licence of the petitioner shall not be cancelled under Clauses 15(1) and 15(2) of the 1982 Order for violation of Clause 14 of the 1982 Order and the terms & condition No.3 of the licence. 5. It appears that the petitioner submitted the show-cause reply on 18.10.2016. It is submitted by Mr. Bora that earlier to that also the petitioner had submitted written reply on 13.10.2016. 6. Mr. Borah has submitted that though the period of 3 (three) months has elapsed from the date of suspension of the licence, and in terms of Clause 15(1) itself the suspension order has spent its force, yet the petitioner is not allowed to operate the shop. He further submits that as the petitioner had already submitted show-cause to the notice dated 29.09.2016, the respondents may be directed to dispose of the proceeding at an early date. 7. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the same has force. Cancellation proceeding had already been initiated and the petitioner had also replied to the show-cause notice and therefore, ends of justice demands that such proceeding is brought to an end as expeditiously as possible. 8. 7. So far as the second prayer of the petitioner is concerned, the same has force. Cancellation proceeding had already been initiated and the petitioner had also replied to the show-cause notice and therefore, ends of justice demands that such proceeding is brought to an end as expeditiously as possible. 8. So far as the first prayer of the petitioner is concerned, I am of the considered opinion that the same is without any merit, as I find Clauses 15(1) & 15(2) of the 1982 Order do not support the contention of the petitioner. 9. Clauses 15(1) and 15(2) are reproduced herein below for proper appreciation:- “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 of 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. Undisputedly, suspension of the license was ordered on 20.07.2016 and within the period of 90 days, cancellation proceeding had been initiated asking the petitioner to show-cause. Clause 15(2) only provides that a licence cannot be kept under suspension for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. The licence can be suspended in contemplation of a cancellation proceeding but in such a case, licence cannot be kept under suspension beyond 90 days without initiating any proceeding and without affording opportunity to the licensee to state his case. 11. As the cancellation proceeding is in progress and the petitioner had filed appeal, it will be obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of 1 (one) month from today. 11. As the cancellation proceeding is in progress and the petitioner had filed appeal, it will be obligatory on the part of the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The appeal shall be disposed of within a period of 1 (one) month from today. The respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the cancellation proceeding in accordance with law within a period of 3 (three) months. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the cancellation proceeding. 12. The petitioner may produce a certified copy of this order before the respondents for doing the needful in terms of this order.