WP(C) 26/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, le arned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State C ounsel for the respondents. The petitioners are the proprietorial concerns and are running Chaki Mil l in the district of Tinsukia. Their licences were suspended by order dated 30.6 .2007. Presently, they are aggrieved by order dated 29.11.2007 passed by the Ass istant Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs canceling their sub-who lesale licnces, which were granted under Clause 15(1) of the Assam Public Distri bution of Articles Order 1982. It is the grievance of the petitioners that befor e canceling the licences, they were not afforded any opportunity of being heard as required under Clause 15(2) of the Assam Public Distriction of Articles Order , 1982. Clause 15 of the said Order is quoted below: 15 (1). If any licences or his agent or servant or any other person acti ng on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the lciences, th en without prejudice to any other action that may be taken under the Essential C ommodities Act, 1955 (Central Act 10 of 1955) his leicne may be cancelled or sus pended by an order in writing of the licencsing authority and an entry will be m ade in his licence relating to such suspension or cancellation. 15(2) No order of cancellation shall be made under this clause unless th e licences has been given reasonable opportunity of stating shi case against the proposed cancellation but during the pendency or in contemplation of the procee dings of cancellation of the licence, the licence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licence of stating h is case. The written instruction furnished to Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State C ounsel by the Assistant Director by his letter dated 7.1.2008 does not deal with the grievance of the petitioners that as per the requirement of Clause 15(2), r easonable opportunity was not given. The impugned orders also do not speak of pr oviding reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. In view of the above, while interfering with the impugned orders dated 2 9.11.2007 canceling the licence of both the petitioners, it is hereby provided t hat the authority may now proceed with the stage of issuance of notice to the pe titioners by way of giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. After issuance of notice and consideration of the materials thereof, which may be submitted by the petitioners, the authority may pass appropriate orders in accordance with l aw. The documents produced by Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned State Counsel shal l form part of the records.