Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010091602024 2025:GAU-AS:3952 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2463/2024 ABDUL ODUD CHOUDHURY AND ANR SECRETARY, M/S NITAINAGAR GPSS LTD, HAILAKANDI, S/O LT. ABDUS SUKKUR CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL- BAHADURPUR PT-(I), P.O.-RANGAUTI, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM 2: M/S NITAINAGAR GPSS LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ABDUL ODUD CHOUDHURY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LT. ABDUS SUKKUR CHOUDHURY R/O VILL- BAHADURPUR PT-(I) P.O.-RANGAUTI DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASSAM BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-05 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 4:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR Page No.# 2/8 I/S FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND C.A. HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 5:THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 6:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (FCS AND CA) HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-788155 7:THE AREA OFFICER (FCS AND CA) HAILAKANDI P.O. AND DIST- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN-78815 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, S HOQUE Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 01.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. F. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Chetia, learned Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 15.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Director, In-Charge, Food Civil Supplies & C.A., Hailakandi, whereby the Sub-Wholesale license in the name of the petitioner Page No.# 3/8 was cancelled. The other challenge is an order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Hailakandi, exercising its power as Appellate Authority and upholding the order of cancellation dated 15.09.2023, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order dated 15.09.2023, was passed without adherence of principles of natural justice inasmuch as though the entire allegation/show cause was based on certain reports, however, no copy of such report was furnished to the petitioner to it’s prejudice. While challenging the appellate order of the District Commissioner, Hailakandi dated 08.04.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appellate Authority even failed to exercise it’s jurisdiction and decided the appeal with perversity inasmuch as the ground of rejecting the appeal was based on an F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner and the charge-sheet filed thereon. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has violated the license condition and the respondent authorities after due enquiry through the Executive Magistrate as well as through the Additional Director of the Department has been able to establish that the petitioner had resorted to malpractices and violated the license condition and therefore, the license was rightly cancelled. The learned counsel for the respondent State further contends that the due show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner also replied to such show cause notice. According to them, though no copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, however, from the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioner, it is clear that he was aware of such enquiry report and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, this is not a fit case for exercise of power of this Court of judicial review and accordingly, liable to be dismissed. 5. To appreciate the contention raised, this Court has perused the original record Page No.# 4/8 produced by the learned State counsel. 6. The aforesaid record goes to show that the initial enquiry was initiated on the basis of some telephonic complaint and some organization called AJYP and enquiry was conducted by Assistant Director, Food Civil Supplies & CA, Hailakandi and a report was submitted by the officer before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi on 17.08.2023. 7. Thereafter, on 18.08.2023, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Assistant Director, inter alia alleging that the petitioner has failed to distribute foodgrains to the Fair Price Shop under M/s Nitainagar GPSS Ltd and M/s Mohanpur GPSS Ltd upto 16.08.2023 inspite of 379 nos. bags of rice being available with it. It is important to note that such show cause notice don’t find any reference to the Enquiry Report. 8. Thereafter, on 22.08.2023, the petitioner filed a reply to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 before the Assistant Director, giving an explanation that non distribution of rice was for scarcity of labour and the petitioner, thereafter, started doorstep delivery under tier-II system and distribution was completed on 19.08.2023. It was the further stand of the petitioner that another reason for disruption in distribution is disruption of road communication between R.P. Road to near PHH for construction of a culvert. 9. While the matter was at that stage, on 25.08.2023 another Enquiry Report was submitted by the Executive Magistrate Hailakandi, however, it is not disclosed from the record that when such enquiry was conducted or was there any complaint in this regard or whether the said enquiry was also conducted on the basis of the telephonic complaint and complaint from other organization called AJYP. 10. Thereafter, on 11.09.2023 another show case notice was issued by the Page No.# 5/8 Assistant Director to the petitioner in reference to the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate and Assistant Director (as recorded hereinabove) and it was alleged that the petitioner has violated the condition No. 3(a), 3(b) & 8(1) read with Clause 14, 11, 18 & 26 of Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, 1982) and the Assam Control Order, 2001 and 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a reply to such show cause notice dated 11.09.2023 in the same manner as it was taken earlier reply to the show cause notice dated 18.08.2023 and also decided the allegation. 11. Subsequently, by the impugned order dated 15.09.2023, the license of the petitioner was cancelled by the Assistant Director i/c Food Civil Supplies & C.A., Hailakandi and the foundation of such cancellation of the license is the report dated 25.08.2023 submitted by the Executive Magistrate & Area Officer, Hailakandi and the reported submitted by the Assistant Director i/c Food Civil Supplies & C.A., Hailakandi. 12. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Commissioner, Hailakandi on 13.10.2023, which was also dismissed by the District Commissioner by its order dated 08.04.2024. Such order reflects that the appeal was dismissed on the ground that a case was registered against the petitioner before the Hailakandi Police Station which was registered as Hailakandi P.S. Case No. 216/2023 under Sections 120(B)/420/409/468/380/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and also for the reason that the petitioner has been charge sheeted under Charge Sheet No. 39/2024 dated 29.02.2024. 13. The Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 was notified in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which amongst others lays down the procedure of cancellation of a license, more particularly, under paragraph 15 of the Order, 1982. Paragraph 15 of the Order Page No.# 6/8 1982, prescribes that any licensee or agent or servant or any other person, acting on behalf of the licensee when contravene any of the terms and conditions of the license, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under Essential Commodities Act, 1955, his license may be cancelled. Paragraph 15(2) of the Order 1982, further provides that no order of cancellation shall be made under this paragraph unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity or stating his case against proposed cancellation. 14. Under paragraph 17 of the Order 1982, the licensing authorities are empowered to cancel license without giving the licensee, any opportunity of stating his case, when a licensee is convicted by any Court of Law or for contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 15. There is no dispute in the present case that the allegation was based on two enquiry reports, one by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and other is by the Executive Magistrate. The Assistant Director’s enquiry was based on a telephonic complaint and complaint by some organization called AJYP. As recorded hereinabove, the first show cause dated 18.08.2023 did not find any mention of any of such complaint though record reveals that the report of the Assistant Director was submitted prior to the date of issuance of show cause notice. Therefore, at that stage, petitioner was not put to notice of any existence of any complaint or Report on the basis of which cancellation is proposed. 16. Be that as it may, subsequently, in the second show cause notice dated 11.09.2023, reference to both of the enquiry reports are made, however, admittedly no copy of such enquiry report is given to the petitioner to reply nor the findings of such Enquiry Report was disclosed in the show cause notice. 17. It is seen that the Rule prescribes reasonable opportunity of hearing prior to cancellation of a license under the statutory order issued in exercise of power Page No.# 7/8 under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Thus, it is clear that the Rule 15(2) of the Order 1982 prescribes and mandates for adherence of principles of natural justice. 18. Principles of natural justice mandate a reasonable opportunity to a person before taking any action against him. It is equally well settled that the adjudicating authority must disclose all the materials placed before it and must give a reasonable opportunity to the affected to submit his/their case in reference to such materials on the basis of which the action is proposed. 19. It is important that an opportunity in the context of Clause 15(2) of the Order, 1982 more particularly, in the given facts of the present case shall mean at least disclosure of contents of the enquiry report on the basis of which the cancellation was proposed and which was subsequently, cancelled by the impugned order based only such enquiry report. When admittedly, the entire proceeding of cancellation initiated against the petitioner is based on the two enquiry reports, in the considered opinion of this Court, copy of such enquiry report ought to have been furnished to the petitioner to enable him to file an affective reply and such situation would have only satisfied the mandate of adherence of principles of natural justice under Paragraph 15(2) of the Order, 1982. Therefore, on the aforesaid count, the cancellation order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, same stands set aside. 20. Now coming to the order of appellate authority i.e. the District Commissioner, Hailakandi. The District Commissioner, Hailakandi has not dealt with any of the issues raised by the petitioner in his appeal memo nor dealt with allegation made in the show cause, rather took the decision on the basis of a charge sheet filed against the petitioner in a police investigation. 21. Paragraph 17 of the Order 1982, as discussed hereinabove, clearly stipulates Page No.# 8/8 that an adherence of principles of natural justice is waived, when a person is convicted by the Court of law for contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 22. In the case in hand, a charge sheet was filed, amongst other, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. However, filing of a charge sheet cannot lead to a conclusion that the petitioner is already guilty of commission of such offence. Therefore, the District Commissioner cum Appellate Authority could not have relied on such a charge sheet to dismiss the appeal and therefore, such decision is a perverse decision. This Court also records that the District Commissioner even did not deal with the reasons disclosed in the cancellation order, when it was sitting as an Appellate Authority. 23. In the totality of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the District Commissioner, Hailakandi, is also not sustainable under law. Accordingly, same stands set aside. Accordingly, the license of the petitioner be restored immediately and not beyond four weeks. 24. The original record is returned back to the learned counsel for the respondents. JUDGE Comparing Assistant