Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 131 (GAU)

Rajib Saikia v. State of Assam

2021-02-12

PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA

body2021
ORDER : Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.N. Tamuli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. DD Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate is present. 2. The petitioner was the holder of the license No. SVSL/Addl/FPS/2/2000 under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 and operating as the agent of Jokaichuk Co-operative Society. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 20.10.2016 for violation of clauses 3(a) (b) of the license amounting to violation of Section 18 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. The offences are non-display of list of stocked items along with price and the quantity of goods available in the shop for the information of general public and the other one, nonproduction of up to date stock register required to be maintained as per the term's of the license. The petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice and admitted his guilt along with his explanation that though he maintained the stock register but the same was not as per required form in vogue. The respondent No. 3 vide the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 cancelled the license of the petitioner being not satisfied with the reasons shown against the notice. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Tamuli that though the petitioner in his show cause reply admitted the deficiencies on his part however the imposition of the punishment like cancellation of the license is disproportionate to the offences. It is further submitted that there is no allegation in respect of shortage of any of the licensed item nor any other gross violation of the condition of the license. Ms. Barman on the other hand objected to the said submission of Mr. Tamuli on the ground that there is clear admission of violation of the terms of the license by the petitioner in respect of the deficiency and as such he is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel. On perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 it is found that due to the confession of the guilt by the petitioner the said license was cancelled. On perusal of the reply to the show cause it is found that the petitioner made an explanation as to why he could not produce the stock register before the concerned officer. 2 and 3 it is found that due to the confession of the guilt by the petitioner the said license was cancelled. On perusal of the reply to the show cause it is found that the petitioner made an explanation as to why he could not produce the stock register before the concerned officer. As per the said explanation though the petitioner maintained the stock but it was not as per required format and the practice followed. In my considered opinion, as the petitioner in the show cause reply also stated that he had been maintaining the stock register as required as per the practice after the show- cause notice. Under such circumstances the respondent No. 3 ought to have considered the explanation of the petitioner instead of considering the statement in the reply as confession. Considering the offence, in my considered opinion the punishment of cancellation of license is disproportionate and as such this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.03.2017 is hereby set aside with a further direction to the respondent No. 3 to pass necessary order restoring the license to the petitioner. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.