WP(C) 1137/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. As agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the motion stage itself. The petitioner, who was earlier granted a license under the provisions of the As sam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (in short, 1982 Order ) by the present petition has challenged the order dated 26th May, 2010 passed by the Com missioner, Upper Assam Division rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the licensing authority on 15th September, 2009 canceling the license granted under the provisions of the said 1982 Order. The grounds of challenge of the said order are that the Commissioner has passed the order without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the said order does not disclose any reason for rejection of the appeal, dealing wi th the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that sin ce Clause 29 of the 1982 Order requires giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the Commissioner being the statutory authority creat ed by Clause 29 of the said Control Order for deciding the said appeal, such app eal cannot be disposed of without disclosing the reason for doing so, as has bee n done in the instant case. Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 26t h May, 2010 passed by the Commissioner, Upper Assam Division may be set aside an d the matter may be remitted to the Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitt ed that since the order passed by the Commissioner on 26th May, 2010 does not di sclose any reason for rejecting the appeal, the matter may be remitted to the le arned Commissioner for deciding the appeal afresh. It appears from the order dated 26th May, 2010 passed by the Commissioner, Upper Assam Division that no ground has been cited for rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The Commissioner having satisfied with the reply filed by th e Deputy Commissioner has rejected the appeal without dealing with the grounds t aken by the present petitioner in the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissione r. Such appeal being the statutory appeal as provided under Clause 29 of 1982 Order , the Commissioner has to record reason while disposing the appeal, which is als o necessary as, such an order is, in the event of challenge, open to scrutiny by the writ Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constit ution of India. Clause 29(3) of the said 1982 Order also provides that no order which adversely affects any person shall be passed under the said Clause unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The impugned order dated 26 th May, 2010 does not disclose hearing the present petitioner, who was the appel lant before the said authority. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26th May, 2010 passed by the Comm issioner, Upper Assam Division is set aside. The learned Commissioner is direct ed to decide the appeal proceeding afresh after hearing of the parties concerned including the petitioner and by a speaking order. The said exercise is directe d to be completed by 2nd May, 2011. The petitioner shall appear before the Comm issioner on 14th March, 2011. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost s.