WP(C) 372/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.GOSWAMI Having regard to the subject matter of the instant proceeding and as agr eed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the case is taken up for final di sposal at the admission stage. The petitioner is a licence holder under Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982, for short, the Order. On an earlier occasion, he approached this c ourt by filing writ petition being W.P(C) 2852 / 2009. The grievance expressed in the said writ petition was to the effect th at although the petitioner was a Public Distribution System (PDS) licence holder , he was not released PDS items by Moirabari Goan Panchayat Samabai Samitee Ltd . and its functionaries. This court by an order dated 7.9.2009 disposed of the s aid writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to take on rec ord the grievance of the writ petitioner and to take appropriate action in the m atter. On yet another occasion, he had to approach this court by filing W.P (C) No. 6483 / 2010. The grievance that was ventilated in the said writ petition wa s basically to the effect that though the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon had pass ed an order dated 20.10.2009, allowing the petitioner to run his fair price sh op catering to 1340 Nos. of population, Moirabari Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samit tee Ltd. was not issuing the PDS commodities to the petitioner’s fair price shop to meet the requirement and consequent thereto, he had filed representation in this regard to the authorities in the Food and Civil Supplies and Consumers Aff airs Department to bring to their notice the aforesaid state of affairs. But n o action was taken on such representation. This court by an order dated 6.12.201 0, after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, directed the respondent No. 2, namely, Director, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs to take notice of the grievances of the petitioner and to dispose of the representation. A further direction was issued to the effect that the Moirabari Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Ltd. shall supply ration commod ities to the petitioner as per the population mentioned in the order dated 2 0.10.09, till the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the respondent No.2. It would appear that the said representation was not considered . However, on 16.11.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, passed an order in exercise of power conferred under Clause 15 (1) of the Order suspending the ret ail licence of the petitioner for contravention of provisions of the Clauses 14, 25 and 26 of the Order as well as the terms and conditions enumerated in 4,6,8(1 ) of the licence issued to him. It would appear from the order dated 16.11.2010 that there was an inquiry conducted through the Area Officer of Food & Civil S upplies and Consumers Affairs, Morigaon. By the said order, Secretary of Moiraba ri Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Ltd. was allowed to distribute PDS and TDPS articles to the consumers of the petitioner. It is this order which is impugne d in the present proceeding. I have heard Shri D.C.Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr s. V.L.Singh for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Mr. FKR Ahmed for respondent No.6, the Moirabari Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samittee Ltd. Today at the hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 , Mrs. Singh, has produced a letter dated 11.2.2011 along with an order which i s stated to have been passed on 7.2.2011, in terms of the order passed by this Court on 6.12.2010 in W.P (C) No. 6483 of 2010.The said order also takes note o f the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that havin g regard to the provision contained in Clause 15(2) of the Order , the order o f suspension dated 16.11.2010 has spent its force. He submits that no notice has been issued to him with regard to taking of any further step by the authoritie s concerned. According to him, in view of the maximum statutory prescribed peri od of suspension of retail licence without notice being 90 days, as no further step has been taken by the authority, the petitioner should be allowed to run his shop. Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 submits that the a uthorities had complied with the direction of this court on 6.12.2010. It is to be noted herein that respondent No. 6 is the Morigaon Panchayat Samabai Samitte e Ltd., which is allowed to distribute the PDS and TDPS articles to the customer s of the writ petitioner and against whose action the earlier writ petitions we re directed . He further submits that the writ petitioner has failed to make o ut any case for interference by this Court. Mrs. Singh, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 disputes the contention advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner that under the provisions of Clau se 15(2) of the Order, power to suspend licence without giving any opportunity to the licensee to state his case, is for a maximum period of 90 days. She is , however, unable to throw any light as to whether any further action has been taken by the authorities in terms of the order dated 7.2.2011. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. A perusal of Clause 15 (1) of the Order would indicate that the Licensing Autho rity as defined in the Order, without prejudice to any other action that it ma y take under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, cancel or suspend the licenc e by an order in writing, if any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and conditions of the l icence. Clause 15(2) provides that no order of cancellation shall be made unle ss the licensee has been given reasonable opportunity of stating his case aga inst the proposed cancellation. It is also provided that during pendency of can cellation proceedings or when a cancellation proceeding is in contemplation, li cence can be suspended for a period not exceeding 90 days without giving any opportunity to the licensee of stating his case. It would , thus , appear that the Licensing Authority can keep a licence under suspension for a maximum period of 90 days without affording any opportunity to the licensee to state his case. If for any valid or just ground, the Licensing Authority wants to keep the licence under suspension beyond a period of 90 days, it has to, invariably, having regard to the language of Clause 15 (2), issue a notice to the licensee to enable him to state his case. There is no dispute that the period of 90 days reckoning from 16.11.2010, has,in the meantime, elapsed. If that be so, for all intents and purposes, the order d ated 16.11.2010 shall have to be treated as non-est in law as of date . As a co nsequence thereto, the writ petitioner shall be permitted to run his fair price shop unless there is any other order that has been issued in the meantime whic h prohibits running of such fair price shop. Naturally, the authorities will hav e to ensure supply of commodities to the petitioner for distributing the same to his consumers. The letter dated 11.2.2011 and the order dated 7.2.2011 produced by Mrs. Singh s hall form part of the record. In terms of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.