Dipali Das vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the Respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division dismissing the Appeal against the order dated 21.05.2020 issued by the Deputy Director, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kamrup Metropolitan District, whereby the license of the Petitioner's Fair Price Shop was cancelled.

The brief facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Petitioner herein was a license holder of a Fair Price Shop at Panbari, Chandrapur Circle under Pragjyotishpur Police Station in the District of Kamrup (Metro) Assam. The license was issued by the Deputy Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kamrup (M) Assam i.e. the Respondent No.5.

On 30.07.2019, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) i.e. the Respondent No.6 had issued an order thereby suspending the Petitioner's license in terms with Clause 15 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order 1982, (for short ‘the Order of 1982’). The said suspension was made on the basis of a report submitted by the Superintendent, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Kamrup (Metro) i.e. the Respondent No.7.

The Petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice on 25.10.2019 and thereupon the Petitioner replied on 11.11.2019 to the said Show Cause Notice stating inter alia that the charges levelled against the Petitioner were fictitious and had no basis. Be that as it may, vide an order dated 21.05.2020, the Respondent No.5 passed an order thereby cancelling the Petitioner's license. The Petitioner thereupon preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division, Guwahati in terms with Clause 29(c) of the Order of 1982 raising various grounds challenging the order dated 21.05.2020 passed by the Respondent No.5.

It is the allegation of the Petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was granted and on 15.09.2021, the Respondent No.9 had dismissed the Appeal. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner therefore approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the Show Cause Notice was issued by the Respondent No.6 who was not the licensing authority. The Petitioner submitted a reply to the Respondent No.6. An enquiry was conducted behind the back of the Petitioner by the Respondent No.7 and even without providing a copy to the Petitioner, the order was passed on 21.05.2020 against the Petitioner. No copy of the report was submitted to the Petitioner. Thereupon, the order was passed by the Respondent No.5 that too without providing the Petitioner an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that taking into account that there is an appellate remedy, the Petitioner approached under Clause 29(c) of the Order of 1982 and in a most perfunctory manner, the Respondent No.9 dismissed the Appeal. The learned counsel submitted that the arbitrary manner in which the adjudication was carried out is writ large on the face of the impugned order dated 15.09.2021 inasmuch as, there is no reason assigned in the impugned order.

Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents however submitted that the Petitioner was granted adequate opportunity by the licensing authority. In addition to that, the report which was submitted by the Respondent No.7 categorically shows that the Petitioner had violated the provisions of that Order of 1982, terms of the license, as well as the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. He therefore submitted that this is not a fit case wherein this Court may exercise the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record.

Upon perusal of the materials on record and more particularly a reading of the grounds taken in the Memo of Appeal so filed by the Petitioner and read with the order dated 15.09.2021 impugned in the instant proceedings would show that there are no reasons which have been assigned by the Appellate Authority. It is a trite principle of law that when a statutory Appeal is being provided, it is also the mandate of the Appellate Authority who acts as a quasi-judicial authority to pass a reasoned order. An order passed bereft of reasons renders the said order violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that a direction should be passed upon the Appellate Authority to reconsider the Appeal of the Petitioner by passing a reasoned order.

This Court also takes note of that the Commissionerate Lower Assam Division, Guwahati stands abolished and in terms with the notification dated 16.11.2023, the Appeals filed under the Order of 1982 have been transferred to the Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department. It is further seen from another notification dated 20.11.2023 that the jurisdiction to decide such appeals has been entrusted upon the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department or to any other Authority which the Department may deem fit, thereby making the said authority the Appellate Authority in place of the Divisional Commissioner.

Taking into account above, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:

The impugned order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division is set aside and quashed.

The Secretary, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department is directed to decide the said Appeal afresh by giving the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing.

Mr. R. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that for the last 6 (six) years, the Petitioner’s Fair Price Shop license has been cancelled and therefore a direction may be issued that the said Appeal be disposed of expeditiously. This Court has also given an anxious consideration to the said aspect and it is the opinion of this Court that there is a requirement of an early resolution of the dispute in the interest of not only the Petitioner but also the State. Accordingly, this Court directs the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department to dispose of the Appeal preferably within a period of 6 (six) months from the date a certified copy of the instant judgment is served upon the Secretary, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extant indicated above. No costs.