Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 929 (GAU)

Md. Amir Hussain v. State of Assam

2017-07-17

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SS Roy, learned State counsel for the respondents. 2. The office note dated 11.06.2013 indicates that A/D card in respect of respondent No.5 has been received back after service of notice with his signature. Thereafter, by order dated 19.05.2017, this Court had accepted that the service as regards respondent No.5 is complete and that the matter be posted for hearing after 2(two) weeks. 3. Inspite of the notice being served, the respondent No.5 chooses not to appear before this Court, as such, the matter is proceeded for disposal in his absence. 4. A process was initiated for grant of a fair price shop license in the village Takuamari, in the district of Bongaigaon. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 had participated in the process for grant of the fair price shop license. But subsequently by the communication dated 03.04.2008, the respondent No.5 was requested to deposit the amount of Rs.300/- as NSCFVP and Rs.25/- as license fee through treasury challan. The implication of such requirement to deposit the amount is that the respondent authorities had decided to grant the PDF license in favour of the respondent No.5. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved had preferred an earlier writ petition being WP(C)No.2554/2008. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had raised two-fold grievances, inasmuch as, firstly the said respondent No.5 had earlier availed the benefit of belonging to a BPL family and secondly, he is also involved in some criminal cases. 6. This Court by order dated 03.02.2011 had disposed of the said writ petition by providing that upon consideration of the criminal antecedent of respondent No.5 and also the fact that he was a BPL card holder till 02.11.2007, his selection for grant of PDF license in Takuamari village in preference over the petitioner cannot be considered to be reasonable and that this Court further expressed the view that the license granted to the respondent No.5 was unjustly given. Accordingly the said communication dated 03.04.2008 as well as the PDS license granted to the petitioner on 02.06.2008 were set aside and quashed and the Licensing Authority was directed to decide afresh as to who should be granted the license as per the norms in force for distribution of PDS articles for the consumers in Takuamari village. 7. Accordingly the said communication dated 03.04.2008 as well as the PDS license granted to the petitioner on 02.06.2008 were set aside and quashed and the Licensing Authority was directed to decide afresh as to who should be granted the license as per the norms in force for distribution of PDS articles for the consumers in Takuamari village. 7. Against the said order, the respondent No.5 had preferred a writ appeal being WA No.101/2011. The writ appeal was disposed of by the order dated 09.09.2011, wherein the writ appellate Court had declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.02.2011 passed in WP(C)No.2554/2008, by providing the respondent authorities to give due consideration to the application of the respondent No.5 for renewal of the license, in accordance with law. 8. As already held in an earlier adjudication, when this Court directs the respondent authorities to give due consideration to a matter, it does not mean that the respondent authorities without any further consideration straightway grant the concerned favour to the person whose application is to be considered. The expression consideration means that appropriate application of mind and due deliberation be made and appropriate reasons be recorded as to why the concerned relief sought for in the application is to be granted in favour of the applicant. 9. In this writ petition, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that subsequently without undertaking the aforesaid exercise of making an appropriate application of mind and deliberating upon the matter, the license of the respondent No.5 had been renewed. Such procedure adopted by the respondent authorities is found to be unacceptable to this Court. Further, as the Division Bench had refused to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 03.02.2011, and the order of the learned Single Judge providing that the license granted in favour of the respondent No.4 was found to be unacceptable in view of his criminal antecedent and that he was a BPL card holder earlier, would also have to be given its due credence, while passing any order in favour of the respondent No.5. 10. Neither it is the case of the respondent authorities and nor that any records have been produced to indicate that the concerned authorities had undertaken such an exercise as indicated hereinabove. 10. Neither it is the case of the respondent authorities and nor that any records have been produced to indicate that the concerned authorities had undertaken such an exercise as indicated hereinabove. In such view of the matter, this Court has no other option but to direct the respondent authorities to give a fresh consideration as to whether PDS license was required to be granted in favour of the respondent No.5 or not. While giving the said consideration, it is to be understood that consideration does not mean straightway giving the license and that there is a requirement for appropriate application of mind and also to make the required deliberation as to whether the license should be granted in favour of the respondent No.5 or not. 11. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondent authorities shall also keep in mind the earlier observation of this Court that considering the criminal antecedent of the respondent No. 5 and also of the fact that he was a BPL card holder until 02.11.2007, any license granted to him would be un-just. 12. Accordingly, the required consideration as directed hereinabove, be given by the respondent authorities within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further, it is provided that the said consideration shall be given strictly in terms as provided hereinabove. 13. Upon giving fresh consideration, if the respondent authorities are of the view that the license should not be granted in favour of the petitioner, the said decision shall have a precedence over its earlier decision to grant the renewal in favour of the petitioner, and, while doing so, the authorities shall further take a decision as to who should be given the license. 14. In terms of the above this writ petition stands disposed of.