JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner was granted a retailer licence bearing no. NSG 411 [R]/2012 on 15.10.2012 under the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, framed under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the basis of the said licence, the petitioner was running a Fair Price Shop [FPS] at Village – Garubandha no. 2, Police Station – Kachua, Nagaon under the aegis of M/s Jarabari Samabai Sammittee Limited distributing Public Distribution System [PDS] articles to the ration card holders/beneficiaries, tagged to the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to a complaint received from one Sharmila Das alleging that the petitioner had lifted 41.95 quintals of rice on 22.01.2022 from the godown of M/s Jarabari Samabai Sammittee Limited and the same was sold in the open market by depriving the beneficiaries tagged with the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner, [i] an Inspector, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Nagaon; and [ii] the Secretary, M/s Jarabari Samabai Sammittee Limited, Kakoti Gaon made a visit to the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner for an inspection. During the inspection, the petitioner was asked to produce the Books of Accounts relating to lifting and distribution of controlled commodities including the licence, etc. 4. After the inspection carried out in the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner on 28.01.2022, a Seizure List dated 28.01.2022 and a Zimmanama of even date were prepared by the Seizing & Area Officer and the same was placed before the respondent no. 4. Finding violation of Clause nos. 14 & 18 of the APDA Order and various terms and conditions of the licence issued to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 has placed the licence of the petitioner under suspension vide an Order dated 19.02.2022 exercising power under Clause 15 of the APDA Order. By the order, the ration card holders/beneficiaries tagged with the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner were tagged with the nearest Fair Price Shop [FPS] in the greater interest of the beneficiaries. 5. Close on the heels of the Suspension Order, a Show Cause Notice was served upon to the petitioner alleging violation of Clause no. By the order, the ration card holders/beneficiaries tagged with the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner were tagged with the nearest Fair Price Shop [FPS] in the greater interest of the beneficiaries. 5. Close on the heels of the Suspension Order, a Show Cause Notice was served upon to the petitioner alleging violation of Clause no. 6 [4][i] of the Public Distribution System [Control] Order 2001 by the respondent no. 4 on 25.05.2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the case should not be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon for trial. In the Show-Cause Notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner had allegedly violated the provisions of Clause no. 6 [4][i] of the Public Distribution System [Control] Order 2001. In the Show Cause Notice, though various provisions from the APDA Order were mentioned, the action proposed was not cancellation of the licence of the petitioner issued under the APDA Order, 1982. The Reply from the petitioner was asked for on the proposed action of sending the case to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon. In response to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner submitted a Reply immediately thereafter. 6. But, despite submission of the Reply and finding the allegations made in the complaint to be prima facie correct, an Offence Report was prepared for alleged violations of Clause nos. 14 & 18 of the APDA Order and Term and Condition nos. 3 [a][b], 4, 6 & 8 of the Licence, read with Clause 6 [4][1] of the Public Distribution System [Control] Order, 2001 by the Seizing & Area Officer. Thereafter, the Offence Report was submitted before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to initiate the proceeding for the offences punishable under Section 7 [1] & [2] of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On receipt of the Offence Report, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had registered the same as C.R. Case no. 782/2022. Thereafter, the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the case to the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate [S] Nagaon [‘the Trial Court’, for short] on 21.09.2022 for disposal. 7. On issuance of process by the Trial Court the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 04.10.2024 and on his prayer, he was allowed to be released on bail. The trial of CR Case no. 782/2022 is pending as on date. 8. 7. On issuance of process by the Trial Court the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court on 04.10.2024 and on his prayer, he was allowed to be released on bail. The trial of CR Case no. 782/2022 is pending as on date. 8. In the meantime, one Sri Subodh Ranjan Das preferred two writ petitions, W.P.[C.] no. 2058/2011 and W.P.[C.] no. 1841/2015 challenging the appointment of the petitioner as a Fair Price Shop [FPS] retailer under the APDA Order. Sri Subodh Ranjan Das also submitted a Representation on 25.11.2019 before the District Commissioner, Nagaon on the same subject. The writ petitions were disposed of by an Order dated 15.11.2019 directing the District Commissioner, Nagaon to dispose of the Representation by a speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In terms of the said direction, the District Commissioner, Nagaon disposed of the Representation by an Order dated 12.09.2022 holding that there was no irregularity with regard to the grant of licence to the petitioner under the APDA Order. 9. Despite finding no irregularity with regard to issuance of the Fair Price Shop [FPS] licence, the Suspension Order was allowed to continue in the subsequent period without initiating any kind of proceeding thereafter. 10. From the above discussion, it has emerged that the Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner on 25.05.2022 was not under Clause 15 of the APDA Order but in reference to the proposed action of initiation of a criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 11. Clause 15 of the APDA Order reads as under :- 15. [1] If any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the licence, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Essential Commodities Act 1955 [Central Act 10 of 1955] his licence may be cancelled or suspended by any Order in writing of the Licensing Authority and an entry will be made in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. [2] No Order of cancellation shall be made under this Clause unless the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity or stating his case against the proposed cancellation by but during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings of cancellation of the licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. 12. Clause 15[1] of the APDA Order has envisaged that cancellation or suspension is one of the actions that may be taken without prejudice to any other action that can be taken under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 15[1] has provided for the course of actions available under the APDA Order in the event of contravention of the terms and conditions of the license by a licensee. Clause 15[2] has provided that no order of cancellation shall be made unless the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation. However, during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceeding of cancellation of the license, license can be suspended for a period not exceeding ninety days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his / her case. 13. From the afore-stated provisions contained in Clause 15 of the APDA Order, it is clear that a license cannot be kept suspended beyond a period of ninety days without affording opportunity of stating his case. In other words, a license cannot be kept suspended beyond ninety days unless notice is issued requiring the licensee to show cause as to why his license shall not be cancelled. If during the period of ninety days no show cause notice is issued initiating a proceeding for cancellation requiring the licensee to state his case, the suspension order would automatically spend its force. 14. It is evident from the materials on record as well as from the stand taken by the State respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition filed through the respondent no. 3 that the Order of Suspension passed on 19.02.2022 was not followed by any show cause proceeding specifically under Clause 15 of the APDA Order within a period of ninety days. Rather the respondent authorities without initiating any show cause proceeding had allowed to the Suspension Order to continue since 19.02.2022. In the trial of CR Case no. 3 that the Order of Suspension passed on 19.02.2022 was not followed by any show cause proceeding specifically under Clause 15 of the APDA Order within a period of ninety days. Rather the respondent authorities without initiating any show cause proceeding had allowed to the Suspension Order to continue since 19.02.2022. In the trial of CR Case no. 782/2022, a verdict is yet to delivered as the trial is still in progress. 15. As a result, the period of suspension has continued for a period of more than four years from 19.02.2022. In view of such prolonged suspension, the Order of Suspension passed on 19.02.2022, in the considered view of the Court, has assumed a character which is penal in nature. As no show cause proceeding has been initiated under Clause 15 of the APDA Order, within a period of ninety days from 19.02.2022, the Suspension Order passed on 19.02.2022 has spent its force under Clause 15 of the APDA Order and therefore, it is to be observed that the Suspension Order dated 19.02.2022 is no longer in force. It is accordingly observed. 16. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons assigned, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. With the Suspension Order no longer in force, the respondent authorities are directed to allow the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop [FPS]. As the trial of C.R. Case no. 782/2022 is still in progress, the matter of continuation of the licence issued to the petitioner under the APDA Order will abide by the final verdict to be passed therein. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.