WP(C) 2554/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. VL Sinha , learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the official respondents 1 t o 4. Submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.5 is also considered. 2. This matter pertains to the Fair Price Shop at Takuamari village under t he Tilakgaon Ransaidham Samabay Samittee. Following the death of the earlier ret ail dealer on 18.7.07, the process for appointment of a new retail dealer commen ced and the petitioner and two others applied for granting of the licence, under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the 1982 Order ). 3. The petitioner challenges the communication dated 3rd April, 2008 (Annex ure-4A), whereby the respondent No. 5 was directed to pay the licence fee for is suance of a PDS licence to him, in respect of the Fair Price Shop at Takuamari v illage. 4. Mr. AR Sikdar by referring to the report dated 27.1.08 of the Inspector of Food & Civil Supplies, Bongaigaon (Annexure-3B), contends that the responden t No.5 does not have a clean image and in his own village does not enjoyed the c onfidence of the consumers and therefore, the said respondent could not have bee n recommended for grant of the PDS licence. The learned counsel refers to the FI R dated 2.11.07 filed before the Bidyapur Police Outpost, where the respondent N o. 5 is accused of committing theft of paddy grown by the informant on the night of 1.11.07. It is pointed out from the Annuxure-8 document of the petitioner’s rejoinder affidavit that charge has been framed against the respondent No. 5 on 25.9.08 under Section 379 IPC in the Court of the learned CJM, Bongaigaon in GR Case No. 627/07. It is also pointed out that the respondent No. 5 also had a BPL card and, thereafter, his candidature was no way superior than the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 contends that lic ence was granted to him on 2nd June, 2008 and that the licensee not having been convicted in any police case, is not disqualified from getting a licence under t he 1982 Order. It is also submitted that the BPL card was surrendered by the res pondent No. 5 and therefore, an APL card was issued to the respondent on 2.11.07 . 6. It appears from the averments made in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, Food & Civil Supplies, Bongaigaon that the candidature of the petition er was considered to be weaker because of his financial unsoundness. But conside ring the fact that the respondent No. 5 also was a BPL cardholder until 2.11.07, he cannot be in any superior financial position as compared to the petitioner. 7. Furthermore, the theft case where the respondent No. 5 was an accused is stated to have been compromised between the informant and the accused by the de ed of compromise dated 27th February, 2008. But it appears that chargesheet in t he said case was filed against the respondent No.5 on 25.9.08 in the Court of th e learned CJM, Bongaigaon. 8. Considering the criminal antecedent of respondent No. 5 and also the fac t that he was a BPL cardholder until 2.11.07, he selection for granting of PDS l icence in Takuamari village in preference to the petitioner cannot be considered reasonable and I am of the view that licence granted to the respondent No. 5 wa s unjustly given. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 3rd April, 2008 as well as the PDS licence granted to the petitioner on 2nd June, 2008 are set a side and quashed. The Licensing Authorities are accordingly directed to decide a fresh as to who should be granted the licence as per the norms in force to distr ibute PDS articles for the consumers in Takuamari village. 9. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.