WP(C) 2411/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTIC B P KATAKEY Heard Mr J Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr RK Borah, learned sta te counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order granting license in favour of th e respondent no.6 under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order 1982, co ntending, inter alia, that although he, apart from respondent no.6, applied for grant of license, the respondent no.6 had been favoured with without making any enquiry. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner, apart from the respondent no.6, applied for grant of license, the authority ought not to have granted license in favour of respondent no.6 without making any enquiry and sans considering the case of the petitioner in that regard. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, placing reliance on the averme nts made in the affidavit as well as the records, submitted that necessary enqui ry had been conducted and even public meeting was called to know the opinion of populace and after taking into consideration all the relevant factors, the respo ndent no.6 had been granted license under 1982 Control Order. I have perused the records produced by the learned state counsel, where from it appears that necessary enquiry had been conducted and the public opinion was also obtained by the authority before granting the license under 1982 Contr ol Order in favour of respondent no.6. That being the position, I do not find any merit in this case and hence it is dismissed. No costs.