JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondents. 2. Both the Petitioners have assailed the order dated 06.11.2023 in the instant writ petition. 3. The materials on record show that the Superintendent, FCS&CA, Lakhipur, Cachar had submitted a report to the Superintendent, Food Civil Supplies and CA, Lakhipur wherein it was alleged that the Petitioner No.1 had committed the following violations: (a) Lifted NFSA rice for the month of June, 2023 on 04.05.2023 but did not distribute the entire quantity till 08.06.2023 after a gap of more than 30 days; (b) More than 7 Quintals of rice found shortage in available stock compared with the sale Register; (c) The Petitioner No.1 did not display stock and price board of the F.P. Shop; (d) The Petitioner No.1 did not maintain stock register of allotted articles; (e) The Petitioner No.1 did not hang the beneficiary list in the Fair Price Shop; (f) Monthly Performances Report not submitted by the Petitioner No.1; and (g) The available stock of rice did not tally with the sale register. 4. In view of the said allegations contained in the report, it was prima facie found that the Petitioner No.1 contravened Clauses 10, 14, 18, 20 and 21 of the Order of 1982 and, accordingly, the Superintendent, Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Lakhipur i.e. the Respondent No. 5 had suspended the license of the Petitioner No. 1 vide an order dated 15.06.2023 and further issued Show Cause Notice upon the Petitioner No. 1, as to why, the license should not be cancelled. 5. The record further reveals that in respect to the Petitioner No.2, the report so submitted alleged that the Petitioner No.2 had committed the various infractions which are: (a) Received allotted quantity of rice for the month of June, 2023 on 05.06.2023 and did not distribute to the consumers till 08.06.2023, whereas other dealers lifted rice in the first week of May, 2023; (b) The Petitioner No.2 did not hang the beneficiary list in the FP Shop; and (c) The Monthly Performances Report was not submitted by the Petitioner No.2. 6. 6. It was therefore prima facie opined that the Petitioner No. 2 contravened Clauses 10, 14, 20 and 21 of the Order of 1982 as well as also violated Clauses 4, 5 and 8(1) of the Terms and Conditions of the Dealing License issued under the Order of 1982. It was under such circumstances, the Petitioner No.2 was also suspended vide an order dated 15.06.2023 and Petitioner No.2 was also issued Show Cause Notice, as to why, the license should not be cancelled. 7. The record reveals that the Petitioners thereupon submitted their respective replies and sought for withdrawal of the suspension. It is also seen from the records that both the Petitioners filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.6410/2023 challenging the continued suspension of the licenses of the Petitioners. The said writ petition was however withdrawn taking into account that the Respondent No.4 had issued the impugned order dated 06.11.2023. It is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.11.2023. 8. Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the principles of natural justice are facets under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The principles of natural justice not only includes issuance of notice, but also mandates that when an Authority takes any action resulting in civil consequences, there is a requirement of passing orders containing reasons. It has also been submitted that if no reasons are being assigned, the order would not only be in violation of the principles of natural justice, but also becomes unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondents however submitted that though the order dated 06.11.2023 does not contain any reasons, but it would be seen from the very Show Cause Notice itself that both the Petitioners had infringed the various Clauses of the Order of 1982 and as such, the reasons mentioned in the Show Cause Notices can be read into the order dated 06.11.2023. 10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the materials on record. 11. 10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the materials on record. 11. From a perusal of the materials on record and more particularly the impugned order dated 06.11.2023, it is seen that the said impugned order though cancels the license of both the Petitioners, but there is no reasons assigned. It retards that personal hearing was accorded and thereupon certain incriminating materials were found for which the licenses have been cancelled. The order dated 06.11.2023 in the opinion this Court is bereft of any reasons and also is vague. It is the further opinion of this Court that when an Authority makes enquiry on the basis of a Show Cause proceedings, the enquiry exercises jurisdiction in the capacity of a quasi judicial authority and as such, the orders so passed has to contain reasons. Nothing has been mentioned in the said impugned order that what were the incriminating materials and what were the infringement(s) committed by the Petitioners which requires the cancellation of their licenses. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 is not only in violation to the principles of natural justice, but also unfair, unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore requires interference. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned order dated 06.11.2023 is set aside and quashed insofar as the cancellation of the licenses of the Petitioners are concerned. (ii) The Show Cause proceedings insofar as the Petitioners are concerned are reinstated. The Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are given the liberty to proceed with the enquiry and pass orders as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of each of the Petitioners. It is observed that in the circumstance the concerned Respondents are of the opinion that the Petitioners’ licenses are required to be cancelled, the said Respondents can do so but shall give due reason. (iii) It is also seen that from 15.06.2023, the licenses of both the Petitioners have been suspended. Considering the above, this Court therefore directs the Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos. (iii) It is also seen that from 15.06.2023, the licenses of both the Petitioners have been suspended. Considering the above, this Court therefore directs the Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take a decision in respect to the Show Cause proceedings initiated against both the Petitioners within a period of 30 days from the date a certified copy of this judgment is submitted to the Respondent No.4. During this period the Petitioners’ licenses shall continue to remain in suspension. It is also observed that in the circumstance, no order is passed within the period above mentioned, the suspensions of the licenses of the Petitioners cannot further be extended, taking into account the mandate of Clause 15(2) of the Order of 1982. (iv) It is clarified that the impugned order dated 06.11.2023 is set aside and quashed only qua the Petitioners and the instant judgment shall not impact on the cancellation of the other licenses which were also cancelled by the impugned order. 13. Before parting with the record, this Court finds it very pertinent to observe that each of the Petitioners have a separate cause of action, however, one writ petition has been filed. It appears that the advice for filing one writ petition or separate writ petitions were given by the counsel who represents the Petitioners. From two years the present writ petition is pending and as it is the fault of the counsel to advice filing of a joint writ petition, this Court is not inclined to non-suit the Petitioners on account of the mistake committed by the counsel. Mr. B. J. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that such mistakes shall not be henceforth repeated.