WP(C) 2189/2008 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Both the writ petitions being connected to each other, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. W.P. (C) No.1760/2008 In this writ petition, the prayer made is for a direction to the respond ents, more particularly, the Respondent No.5 to issue Retail Sale License to the petitioner as the dealer of Suapata Pt. IV of Suapata village in the district o f Dhubri as per the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Article Order , 1982 and the guidelines framed thereunder. The petitioner made a representation in February, 2008 to the jurisdicti onal Sub-Divisional Officer with the prayer for grant of the aforesaid license. The prayer was made in view of the fact that the existing license-holder Ms Sa hera Khatun of Suapata Pt. IV had surrendered her license for personal diffic ulties. The application made by the petitioner was processed and thereafter, u pon observing necessary formalities, the Superintendent, Food, Civil Supplies an d Consumer Affairs by his letter dated 21.4.2008 addressed to the petitioner int imated that his prayer for issue of retail sale license in the vacant place caus ed due to resignation of Ms Sahera Khatun, Agent under Kazaikata G.P.S.S. had been approved by the S.D.O.(c) Bilasipara. The petitioner was directed to depos it Rs.300/- in the shape of N.S.C. pledged to the authority as security money a nd another Rs.25/- by way of Treasury Challan as license fee through his office. The petitioner duly complied with the requirements as indicated in the aforesai d letter dated 21.4.2008. In this connection, he has annexed copies of N.S.C. a nd the Treasury Challan to the writ petition. When nothing was done towards iss uance of the retail sale license, he made departmental approach but having fai led to get any suitable reply, has filed this writ petition for the aforesaid di rection. W.P. (C) NO.2189/2008 In this writ petition, it is the counter-claim of the petitioner, as aga inst the claim of the petitioner in the first writ petition. According to this w rit petitioner, he is more suitable for allotment of the license. In this conn ection, he has annexed copies of certain recommendations, reports etc. Two mai n pleas urged by the petitioner are that the petitioner in the first writ petit ion is the outsider and that secondly, he is not a shareholder of the jurisdict ional samabai samity. I have heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition as well as Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel representing the petitioner in the second writ petition. I have also heard Ms R. Chakraborty, le arned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. She has produced written instructions fu rnished to her by the S.D.O. (C) Bilasipara. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and the materials on record. In the written instructions furnished to the learned State counsel, it has been stated that the plea of the petitioner in th e second writ petition is not correct. According to the official respondents, the petitioner in the first writ petition is a resident of the area. In fact, t he petitioner has also annexed copy of the Voters List to justify his claim th at he is a resident of the locality. This position has not been denied by the p etitioner in the second writ petition. Thus, the plea of the petitioner in the s econd writ petition that the petitioner in the first writ petition is not a resi dent of the locality falls through. In the written instructions, the respondents have further contended that as per the APDA Order, 1982, there is no requirement that the license holder m ust be a shareholder of the samabai samity. It is a fact that the aforesaid or der of 1982 does not provide that to be a license holder, one will have to be a shareholder of the society. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition could not show anything that to be a license holder, one will have to be a shareholder of the jurisdict ional samabai samity. In that view of the matter, both the grounds urged in the second writ petition fall through. The petitioner in the first writ petition, applied for issuance of the l icense when the earlier licensee surrendered her license expressing her personal difficulties. The authority duly considered the application and in fact, nece ssary enquiry was also conducted. The Inspector, Food & Civil Supplies, upon su ch enquiry, submitted his report on 22.3.2008. As per the said report, the pet itioner is suitable for issuance of the license. The petitioner in the second writ petition also applied for the license claiming himself to be a better candidate than the petitioner in the first writ petition. His main plea is that he being the local resident is more acceptable to the consumers and thus, should have been preferred over the petitioner in the first writ petition. In the matter of granting license, the APDA Order, 1982 does not lay dow n any procedure. It provides that for grant of such license, application should be submitted to the authority concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner i n the first writ petition, submitted his application in respect of the license s urrendered by the earlier licensee. On the basis of such application, his case was processed and on the basis of satisfactory report etc. the order dated 21.4 .2008 was issued in his favour directing him to carry out the required formalit ies towards issuance of the license. In all possibilities, since in the meantime , the petitioner in the second writ petition applied full force to get the licen se to the replacement of the petitioner, in the first writ petition, the authori ty did not issue the license although he was recommended for such license and ne cessary formalities thereof have also been observed. It is a case of choice between two aspirants. The grounds on which the second writ petition is founded, have been noted above. When it is on record t hat the petitioner in the first writ petition is a resident of the locality and that to be a license holder, one need not be a shareholder of the jurisdictional samabai samity, the said two grounds urged in the second writ petition are not sustainable. The authority has processed the matter in accordance with law and on the basis of the materials available on record, has come to the conclusion th at the petitioner in the first writ petition is entitled to get the license. Ac cordingly, he has been asked to carry out necessary formalities which the petit ioner has also carried out. Now, the final stage of the process i.e. the issua nce of the license is stalled due to the pressure mounted by the petitioner in the second writ petition. When both the grounds urged in the second writ petit ion are of no adverse consequence to the petitioner in the first writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the final stage of the issuance of the licen se to him need not be stalled any further. The process initiated and completed by the authority towards granting th e prayer made by the petitioner in the first writ petition cannot be said to be based on any arbitrary or illegal exercise of power. Although the learned counse l for the petitioner in the second writ petition has argued that the petitioner in the first writ petition has been picked up out of turn but such submission wo uld have to be considered on the basis of the grounds urged in the writ petitio n filed by the petitioner. Two grounds which the petitioner has urged, have been noted above. While it is found that both the grounds are unsustainable, the dir ection prayed for by the petitioner in the second writ petition for issuance of the license to him cannot be granted. The authority having initiated and comple ted the process, same must come to a logical conclusion. In view of the above, while the first writ petition is allowed, the second writ petition is dismissed. The authority shall now proceed with the matter towards issuance of the license to the petitioner in the first writ petition, as expedi tiously as possible. The license shall be issued for the interest of the consum ers without any further delay.