Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 960 (GAU)

Mridul Lahan v. State of Assam

2017-07-20

SUMAN SHYAM

body2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondents. 2. Assailing the order dated 09.08.2010, by means of which the fair price shop licence earlier granted in favour of the petitioner under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 was cancelled and the consumers were tagged with the nearest Agent, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The brief facts of the case, giving rise to filing of this writ petition, is that the writ petitioner was earlier issued a licence bearing No.Laruah/68 for running a fair price shop. The said licence was renewed from time to time. During the period of operation of the said licence, the Food & Civil Supplies Inspector of the locality had conducted a surprise visit to the fair price shop of the petitioner on 06.03.2010 whereafter, several anomalies were found in the stock register, lifting book and other registers maintained by the petitioner. Accordingly, by the order dated 16.03.2010 the licence of the petitioner was suspended and he was asked to show cause. After the show cause reply was received, an enquiry was conducted and the Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Dibrugarh had submitted a report dated 12.03.2010 wherein, categorical findings had been recorded to the effect that the petitioner had been misusing the licence thereby diverting quantities of rice and Sk. Oil meant for the consumers for being sold in the open market at a higher price. 4. Taking note of the enquiry report dated 12.03.2010 the Deputy Director and Licencing Authority, Food & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Dibrugarh, had issued the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 cancelling the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Ms. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that subsequently, the petitioner could collect certificates from as many as 30 consumers to show that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer was not correct. On such basis, she has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 and for restoration of the licence in favour of her client. 6. Opposing the said submission of the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. On such basis, she has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 and for restoration of the licence in favour of her client. 6. Opposing the said submission of the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. D. Nath, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam, submits that the impugned order dated 09.08.2010 has been issued after conducting a proper enquiry in the matter on the basis of public complaints received by the authorities. Before taking the impugned decision, the petitioner was also given sufficient opportunity of being heard in the matter. Such being the position, submits Mr. Nath, there is no infirmity in the order dated 09.08.2010 warranting interference by this Court. 7. I have gone through the materials available on record which goes to show that the petitioner had the opportunity of submitting as many as two show cause replies. One of the specific allegation brought against the petitioner is that he had diverted rice under the BPL and AAY scheme amounting to about 27.98 quintals and sold the same in the black market so as to make undue profit, thereby depriving as many as 83 families who were entitled to the same. On a careful scrutiny of the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner I find that no explanation, whatsoever, has been furnished as regards the said allegation levelled against him. From the enquiry report, it further appears that specific findings of fact regarding anomalies in the operation of the fair price shop run by the petitioner had been recorded on the basis of entries in stock register and other registers maintained by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that such findings of fact are perverse in the eye of law. 8. If the petitioner had acted in violation of the conditions of licence as well as the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, then his licence would be liable to be cancelled. In the present case, the authorities had given fair opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and it was only on reaching a satisfaction based on an enquiry that the petitioner had acted in violation of the conditions of the licence and the Order of 1982 that the impugned order has been passed. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.08.2010. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.08.2010. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.