Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010062702025 2025:GAU-AS:5232-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/142/2025 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006, ASSAM. 2: THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY ASSAM RAM KRISHNA MISSION ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 781007 ASSAM. 3: THE DIST. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM. 4: THE DIST. FOOD SUPPLY OFFICER MORIGAON REPRESENTED BY THE DIST. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST. ASSAM. 5: THE ADDL. DIST. COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAONASSAM. 6: THE INSPECTOR FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONSUMER AFFAIRS, MORIGAON. VERSUS 1.BINOY BIKASH BORA AND 2 ORS S/O LATE ARUP JYOTI BORA, R/O U.N.B. ROAD, SILPUKHURI, RIGHT SIDE 3D BYLANE, HOUSE NO. 135C, GUWAHATI 781003, ASSAM. 2:MRS. ANAMIKA KALITA BORA W/O LATE ARUP JYOTI BORA R/O U.N.B. ROAD SILPUKHURI RIGHT SIDE 3RD BYLANE HOUSE NO 135CGUWAHATI 781003 ASSAM. Page No.# 2/4 3:THE INSPECTOR OF LEGAL METEOROLOGY MORIGAON ASSAM. 4:THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL HEAD INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. (IOCL) GUWAHATI DIVISIONAL OFFICE 4TH FLOOR EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 78102. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. D.K. Sarmah, Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam. For the Respondent(s) : Ms. P. Barua, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 30.04.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is preferred on behalf of the State of Assam being aggrieved with the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.381/2025. 2. The facts relevant for present controversy are that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are operating a retail outlet, namely, M/s Morigaon Service Station. During an inspection, on 09.11.2023, some irregularities and malpractices were noticed by the District Commissioner, Morigaon and the District Commissioner, while exercising powers conferred under the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1982 [hereinafter to be referred as “Order, 1982”], has initiated proceedings against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and has passed an order dated 04.12.2023, whereby the trade licence issued to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was suspended till the proceedings under Order, 1982 are finalized. 3. Being aggrieved with the action of the District Commissioner of suspending Page No.# 3/4 the trade licence, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have preferred a writ petition, being WP(C) No.381/2025. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have prayed for passing an interim order. 4. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the respondents as well as the appellants herein, issued a direction to allow the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to operate the retail outlet till the writ petition is taken up for final consideration. It is further directed that the District Commissioner as well as the IOCL authorities shall not take any coercive action against the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 5. The learned Single Judge has passed the interim order only on the ground that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are facing financial hardship since more than a year and therefore, they are required to be allowed to operate the retail outlet enabling them to come out of the financial hardship. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the material available on record, we are of the view that when the trade licence of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 was suspended since 04.12.2023, i.e. more than a year ago, the indulgence by the learned Single Judge by way of interim order dated 10.03.2025 is not justifiable. Hence, we are of the view the order impugned cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. However, the District Commissioner is directed to conclude the proceedings initiated against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 under Order 11 of 1982 Order shall be completed within a period of 4(four) weeks from today after providing opportunity of hearing to the said respondents. Page No.# 4/4 7. Needless to say, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 will also cooperate in the proceedings pending before the District Commissioner. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant