WP(C) 5285/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. BJ Talukdar, learne d Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, who was granted a licence to hawk kerosene oil in Tezpur Ward No. 13, under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (herei nafter referred to as the 1982 Order ) challenges the decision of the Deputy Co mmissioner to cancel the said licence on the ground that the petitioner’s father is also holding a similar licence. The order passed by the Appellate Authority i,.e. the Commissioner , Northern Assam Division on 31.7.07 is also challenged b y the petitioner. 3. The petitioner contends that no prohibition is placed under the 1982 Ord er for two or more persons from the same family to have kerosene hawking licence and several instances are given at Annexure-7 of licences being granted to mul tiple members of the same family in Tezpur Town. It is also contended that no op portunity was afforded to the petitioner before the impugned cancellation order was passed and the Appellate Authority erred in recording that the presence of t he petitioner during the verification process, amounts to giving a hearing to th e licensee. 4. Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel further submits that the Appellate Author ity should not have held it against the petitioner that he had not applied for r enewal of his licence after its validity expired on 31.3.07 by overlooking the f act that the licensee could not have been applied for renewal after it was cance lled on 12.10.06. 5. Mr. BJ Talukder, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate by referring to the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4 submits that the licensee had not fil ed the appeal against the cancellation order dated 12.10.06 within 30 days and a ccordingly the Appellate Authority had rightly dismissed the appeal. 6. On reading of the Deputy Commissioner’s order it is apparent that no opp ortunity was afforded to the petitioner before cancellation of the licence was o rdered. It further appears from the Appellate Authority’s order dated 31.7.07 th at the dismissal was not on account of delay in filing the appeal but on other g rounds i.e. hearing is not obligatory before the licence is cancelled and presen ce of the licensee on the date of verification amounts to hearing. 7. The reasoning recorded by the Commissioner, Northern Assam Dvn. for reje cting the appeal may be extracted herein below for ready reference:- Upon hearing the appellant, it is gathered that he did not apply for renewal o f the licence, validity of which expired on last 31-03-2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From the report of SDO(S), it is evident that appellant was present on the day of verification of Hawker’s licence. The appellant also confirm today during he aring that he was present on the day of verification and he was questioned. I am satisfied that verification and presence of appellant on the day of verificatio n amounts to hearing, and no hearing on cancellation was deemed essential. As su ch, the order passed by D.C. , Sonitpur dated 12-10-2006 is not against establis hed principles of rules and procedures. Moreover the validity period of the licence in question expired on 31.03.2007 an d as there was no petition from the appellant before issuing authority for renew al of licence, the present appeal has become infructuous and is disposed of acco rdingly. Judgment given and delivered today and given in the separate sheet. 8. I have considered the above reasoning given by the Appellate Authority f or non-consideration of the appeal. It is clearly seen that the licence granted to the petitioner was cancelled without affording any fair opportunity to the li censee. The learned Govt. Advocate has not been able to show that there is any prohibition under the 1982 Order to grant licenses to two persons of the same f amily and in fact the petitioner has cited several instances of multiple licenc e being granted in Tezpur to members of a single family. The reasoning given by the Appellate Authority for rejection of the appeal is al so not found to be reasonable and accordingly I am of the view that the impugned order dated 31.7.07 is unsustainable. As the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 12.10.06 was passed in breach of principle of natural justice, the same is also interfered with. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by setting aside the impug ned orders dated 12.10.06 and 31.7.07.