WP(C) 5603/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI The challenge in the writ petition is against an order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar. By the said order th e learned Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur revoking the suspension of the petition er’s licence for distribution of S.K. Oil. 2. I have heard Mr KP Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petiti oner and Mr AM Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 10. I ha ve also heard Mr PS Deka, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respon dent Nos. 1 to 3. 3. The relevant facts which would be required to be noticed for the purposes of the present adjudication may now be stated hereinafter. The writ petitioner was granted a licence under the provisions o f the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereafter referred to a s ’the Order’) for distribution of kerosene oil from his two depots at Lakhipur and Pailapool. Under the guidelines in force 70% of the allotment of S.K. Oil to the petitioner was required to be distributed under the Public Distribution Sys tem (PDS) through the concerned Gaon Panchayat Samabai Samitis and Fair Price Sh op Dealers whereas 30% of the allocation was earmarked for distribution through the authorized street hawkers. One Barak Valley Kerosene Oil Hawkers’ Associatio n instituted a writ petition i.e.WP(C) No. 3144/2008 before this Court alleging allotment of S.K. Oil by the licence holders to different unauthorised hawkers. While the said writ petition remained pending, one Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Sa miti, Lakhipur had instituted another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 650/2009 comp laining of non-supply of S.K. Oil to its members who had claimed to be authorize d hawkers. WP(C) No. 650/2009 was disposed of on 27.2.2009 by directing the pet itioners to approach the respondent No.5 in the writ petition i.e. the Sub-Divis ional Officer (C), Lakhipur who was directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioners within a period of four weeks. It may be mentioned, at this sta ge, that the said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 650/2009 was disposed of without issuing any notice to the present petitioner though he was impleaded as responde nt No.8 in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), L akhipur acting in compliance with the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 65 0/2009, passed an order dated 24.3.2009 suspending the licence of the petitioner and, at the same time, directing a show cause notice to be issued to the petiti oner. On receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner replied and even agreed to the taking away of 30% quota allotted to him which was to be distributed thr ough the street hawkers. Thereafter, by an order dated 10.8.2009 the Sub-Divisio nal Officer (C), Lakhipur restored the licence of the petitioner except to the e xtent of 30% quota earmarked for street hawkers which quota was tagged to anothe r licencee. It also appears from the materials placed before the Court that afte r the order dated 10.8.2009 was passed and the petitioner continued to work on t he basis of the restored licence to the extent of 70 %, by another order dated 3 .11.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur, the licence of the petitioner was once again suspended. What had happened thereafter is not known t o the Court from the materials placed on record by the parties. 4. At this stage, the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti, Lakhipur w ho had instituted WP(C) No. 650/2009 once again approached this Court by institu ting another writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 3558/2009 challenging the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur by which the licenc e of the petitioner to the extent of 70% of the allotment was restored. The said writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 3558/2009 was disposed of by this Court at the mot ion stage on 14.9.2009 by holding that the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the S ub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur was appealable under the provisions of the C ontrol Order and, therefore, if the writ petitioner was aggrieved by the said or der, it was open for him to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of the district. 5. The Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti, Lakhipur, thereafter, fil ed an appeal dated 14.11.2009 before the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar along with an application for condonation of delay that had occurred in instituting the app eal. The Deputy Commissioner, on receipt of the said appeal memo and the condona tion application, issued notice to the petitioner on 13.11.2009 requiring him to contest the proceeding, if so desired, which was fixed on 16.11.2009. The petit ioner, on receipt of the said notice, filed his objections before the Deputy Com missioner contending, inter alia, that the appeal is not maintainable, particula rly when, the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), L akhipur against which the appeal had been filed, did not leave the appellant wit h any grievance as by the said order dated 10.8.2009 the licence of the petition er was restored only to the extent of 70% of the allotment of S.K. Oil meant for distribution through the PDS network. The petitioner specifically contended tha t the appellant being an Association of street hawkers could not have been aggri eved by the said order dated 10.8.2009 as by the order in question the 30% quota earmarked for street hawkers had been taken away from the petitioner and tagged with another licencee. In the objections filed, the petitioner also claimed tha t as the appeal in question has been filed pursuant to the order of the Court da ted 14.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2009, a copy of the said order of the Cou rt as well as a copy of the writ petition be furnished to him. The learned Depu ty Commissioner, thereafter, proceeded to hear the matter and by the impugned or der dated 18.11.2009 had set aside the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-D ivisional Officer (C), Lakhipur giving rise to the present writ petition. 6. Mr KP Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitte d that WP(C) No. 3558/2009 was filed by the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti ag ainst the order dated 10.8.2009 of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Lakhipur rest oring the petitioner’s licence to the extent of 70% of the allotment of S.K. Oil which was to be distributed through the PDS network. The remaining 30% of the a llotment which was to be distributed through street hawkers, whom the petitioner Kalyan Samiti had represented, had been taken away from the petitioner by the o rder dated 10.8.2009 and tagged with another licencee. The learned counsel has s ubmitted that a perusal of the appeal memo filed by the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kaly an Samiti indicates that the grievance projected in the appeal is against restor ation of the licence of the petitioner to the extent of 70% of the allotment. Re lying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Bar Council of Maharashtr a -vs- M.V. Dabholkar etc. etc., reported in AIR 1975 SC 2092, Mr Pathak has sub mitted that the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti cannot be understood to be a ’ person aggrieved’ by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (C) dated 10.8.2009 so as to make the appeal filed by the Kalyan Samiti against the said order main tainable in law. That apart, Mr Pathak has submitted that the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner was filed pursuant to the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 3558/2009. The petitioner desired that copies of the said order and the writ petition be furnished to him. Not only were the aforesaid documents not mad e available to the petitioner, the learned Deputy Commissioner also proceeded in the matter with utmost and unexplained haste, as would be evident from the fact that the notice of appeal was issued on 13.11.2009 fixing the same on 16.11.200 9 and the appeal itself was disposed of on 18.11.2009. In this regard, Mr Pathak has drawn the attention of the Court to Clause-15(2) of the Control Order to po int out that suspension of a licence issued under the Control Order for a period exceeding 90 days can be made only after giving reasonable opportunity to the p erson affected. According to Mr. Pathak, the aforesaid provision of the Control Order has been apparently breached in the present case. 7. In reply, Mr Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 10 has submitted that a reading of the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner would go to show that large scale illegalities and irregularities had been committed by the petitioner in the mater of distribution of S.K. Oil. Such illegalities and irregularities had been committed at differe nt points of time for which the licence of the petitioner was suspended on sever al occasions. In such a situation, according to Mr. Barbhuiya, the learned Deput y Commissioner was fully justified in passing the order dated 18.11.2009. Mr Bar bhuiya has further submitted that the suspension of the licence of the petitione r is in public interest. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. At the outset, it must be put on record that though in the objections filed by the peti tioner against the appeal filed by the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti before the learned Deputy Commissioner, the locus/ standing of the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti to institute the appeal on the ground that the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti is not an aggrieved person was raised by the petitioner, no findi ng in this regard has been recorded by the learned Deputy Commissioner in the im pugned order dated 18.11.2009. Furthermore, it appears that in WP(C) No. 3558/20 09 and in the appeal filed pursuant to the order dated 14.9.2009 passed in the s aid writ petition specific allegations have been levelled against the petitioner with regard to non-supply of S.K. Oil against the quota earmarked for the stree t hawkers during the periods mentioned therein. However, by the order dated 10.8 .2009 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the 30% quota earmarked for supply through street hawkers was taken away from the petitioner and the licence of the petitio ner only to the extent of 70% of the earlier allotment meant for distribution th rough the PDS network was restored. If quota or allotment for supply through str eet hawkers stood withdrawn from the petitioner and only the quota of allotment earmarked for distribution through PDS network was restored, the Kerosene Oil Ha wker Kalyan Samiti cannot be understood to be an aggrieved person in so far as t he order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned. The Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti, admittedly, being composed of street hawkers, restoration of the 70% quota meant for distribution through the PDS network cou ld not have been challenged by it in the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissi oner. The Court, therefore, has to come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan Samiti before the Deputy Commissioner, in whic h the order dated 18.11.2009 has been passed, should be held to be not maintaina ble. 9. That apart, the order dated 18.11.2009 was passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in an appeal proceeding filed under the provisions of the C ontrol Order. The Deputy Commissioner was exercising a quasi judicial power vest ed in him by the Control Order. The exercise of any judicial or quasi judicial p ower comprehends grant of reasonable opportunity to a person who is likely to be affected by such order as may be passed in the proceedings in question. This is a requirement spelt out by the elementary principles of natural justice, regard less of what is contained in Clause 15(2) of the Control Order which may not str ictly apply to the present case. It has already been found from a perusal of the records that the notice of the appeal filed by the Kerosene Oil Hawker Kalyan S amiti was sent to the petitioner on 13.11.2009 fixing the appeal for hearing on 16.11.2009. While the efforts made by the Deputy Commissioner to expeditiously d ispose of the appeal has to be appreciated, at the same time, such efforts canno t be allowed to come in conflict with the requirements of reasonable opportunity . The petitioner filed his objections in the appeal on 16.11.2009 and sought cop ies of the order of the Court passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2009 and the writ petitio n. The request for copies of the said order and the writ petition cannot be said to be unjustified as the appeal itself was filed pursuant to the order dated 14 .9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 3558/2009. The learned Deputy Commissioner did not s pecifically address himself to the aforesaid request of the petitioner and witho ut recording as to why the said request is in any way untenable or unreasonable, proceeded to hear the appeal. Such a course of action on the part of a quasi ju dicial authority cannot have the Court’s approval. 10. A reading of the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned De puty Commissioner also indicates that though the Deputy Commissioner was require d to consider the validity of the order dated 10.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisi onal Officer in the appeal filed before him(assuming the appeal to be maintainab le), in determining the validity of the said order subsequent facts and events including another order dated 3.11.2009 by which the licence of the petitioner w as once again suspended, were taken into account. Public complaints received wit h regard to the manner of functioning of the petitioner after the licence was re stored in a limited manner by the order dated 10.8.2009 of the Sub-Divisional Of ficer were also taken into account by the learned Deputy Commissioner while rend ering the order dated 18.11.2009. Cognizance of such subsequent facts and events could not have been legitimately taken by the learned Deputy Commissioner to ad judge the validity of an order passed earlier to the occurrence of such facts an d events. 11. Taking into account what is stated above, the Court is of the vi ew that the order dated 18.11.2009 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner dis closes apparent legal infirmities which would call for the Court’s interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said order, therefore, is set aside. 12. It is, however, made clear that as there appears to be another o rder dated 3.11.2009 suspending the licence of the petitioner and what had happe ned thereafter is not known to the Court, the interference made by means of the present order will not result in restoration of the licence of the petitioner wh ich issue will now be governed by the order dated 3.11.2009 and such other order s that may have been passed in consequence or in abrogation of the said order da ted 3.11.2009. 13. The writ petition, consequently, is allowed to the extent indica ted above.