WP(C) 5183/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who is a licensee under the provisions of the Assam Public Distr ibution of Articles Order, 1982 (in short, 1982 Order ), by the present petitio n has challenged the order dated 6th August, 2010 passed by the Licensing Author ity suspending the license on the ground of contravention of the provisions of 1 982 Order and also Clause 6(4) of the PDS Control Order 2001. The said order wa s passed by the licensing authority in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of Clause 15(i) of the 1982 Order. According to the petitioner such order was passed without issuing any notice and despite furnishing all information including the documents relating to the comp liance of the different provisions of 1982 Order as well as 2001 Order, which ac cording to the petitioner, were not taken into consideration by the licensing au thority. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for setting aside the said order dated 6th August, 2010, and/or a direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal dated 3rd September, 2010 preferred by the petitioner before the Dep uty Commissioner, under Clause 29(1) of the 1982 Order, which, according to the petitioner, has not been disposed of. I have heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Bora , learned State counsel appearing for all the respondents. Mr. S.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for Shri Sunil Tanti, who lodged the caveat but has not been arrayed as party respondent in the writ petition, has also heard. Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Sub -Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, on the basis of certain allegations made by certain consumers, directed the petitioner to appear in the office on 6th Augus t, 2010, he could not do so because of the personal difficulties and has attende d the office on 7th August, 2010 and thereafter, on 8th August, 2010 submitted a ll the necessary documents/registers to demonstrate that there was no contravent ion of any of the provisions of 1982 Order as well as 2001 Order, which document s were never taken into consideration by the authority. It has also been submit ted that the authority despite getting the intimation from the petitioner that h e is enable to appear on 6th August, 2010, has passed the impugned order of susp ension of the license on 6th August, 2010. The learned counsel further submits that though an appeal was filed before the appellate authority on 3rd September, 2010, as required under Clause 29(1) of the 1982 Order, the same has not been d isposed of till date. Mr. Bora, learned State counsel appearing for all the respondents has submitted that on the basis of certain complain received from the consumers, an enquiry wa s conducted and thereafter, though the petitioner was asked to appear on 6th Aug ust, 2010, he did not do so. The learned counsel further submits that keeping i n view the report dated 4th August, 2010 submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies and having prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has contra vened the provisions of the 1982 and 2001 Orders, the order of suspension has be en passed. Mr. Bora, however, has submitted that since the petitioner has prefe rred an appeal challenging the said order dated 6th August, 2010 passed by the l icensing authority, the same would definitely be considered and necessary order would be passed in accordance with law. The learned counsel appearing for the caveator has also submitted that the licen sing authority has passed the impugned order dated 6th August, 2010 having prima facie satisfied about the allegations made by some consumers, on the basis of w hich an enquiry was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies. While issuing notice of motion in the present writ proceeding, vide order dated 22nd September, 2010, for the reasons recorded therein, the operation of the imp ugned order dated 6th August, 2010 has been kept in abeyance and accordingly, th e petitioner is now dealing with the PDS items pursuant to the license granted i n his favour. The order of suspension dated 6th August, 2010 is appealable under Clause 29(1) of the 1982 Order. The petitioner in fact has filed an appeal on 3rd September, 2010 under the said provisions of law, which, according to the petitioner, has not been disposed of till date. The dispute raised on merit in the present petit ion can conveniently be decided by the appellate authority. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of directing the Deput y Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, Dibrugarh to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner and to dispose of the same by a speaking order, after hearing al l the concerned parties, if such appeal has not already been decided. The same shall be done within a period of 2 (two) months from today. The petitioner shal l, within 1 (one) week from today, produce a copy of the order passed today befo re the Deputy Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies alongwith the copy of the writ petition with Annexures appended thereto. Till such appeal is disposed of, the interim order passed on 22nd September, 2010 shall continue to operate. It is needless to say that the interim order passed shall cease to operate as soon as the appeal is disposed of. In the event, the appeal has already been disposed o f, the Deputy Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies shall furnish a copy of the sa id order to the petitioner forthwith. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.