WP(C) 3137/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H.M. P hukan, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) rejecting the representation filed by him. The petitioner, who is the licensee under the provisions of the Assam Public Dis tribution of Articles Order, 1982 (in short, 1982 Control Order ) was issued wi th a show cause notice on 9th October, 2001 by the Superintendent of Food and Ci vil Supplies, Mangaldoi, prior to which 17375 liters of blue dyed SK Oil was sei zed on 27th August, 2001. By such show cause notice, the petitioner was asked a s to why the license granted under 1982 Control Order should not be cancelled. The petitioner on receipt of the same submitted the reply whereafter a hearing w as conducted and the order dated 26th February, 2002 was passed by the Additiona l Deputy Commissioner, Darrang at Mangaldoi directing the petitioner to deposit the value of the entire quantity of SK Oil of 17375 liters. Being aggrieved, th e petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP(C) No.1667/2002, which was dispo sed of vide order dated 29th January, 2009 allowing the petitioner to approach t he Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mangaldoi by way of a representation ventilat ing his grievances and accordingly a representation was filed by the petitioner on 23rd June, 2009, which was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) by the impugned order dated 15th July, 2009. Mr. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though in the representation dated 23rd June, 2009 a number of grounds were taken by th e petitioner, nothing has been considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) while passing the impugned order dated 15th July, 2009 and as such, the Sub-Divi sional Officer (Sadar) may be directed to dispose of the said representation afr esh by a speaking order. Mrs. Phukan, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no instruction has been furnished till date by any of the respondents. It has, ho wever, been submitted that if this Court directs, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sa dar) shall definitely pass necessary order on the basis of the representation fi led by him. It appears from the impugned order dated 15th July, 2009 passed by the Sub-Divis ional Officer (Sadar) that the grounds taken by the petitioner in the representa tion dated 23rd June, 2009 have not been considered. No ground in fact has been assigned in the impugned order for rejection of the representation. Since the petitioner raised a number of grounds in the representation, those are required to be dealt with by the authority, which has not been done till date. In view of the above, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar), Mangaldoi is directed to reconsider the representation filed by the petitioner and pass a speaking ord er thereon within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the cert ified copy of the order passed today alongwith the copies of the writ petition a nd its annexures appended thereto to be submitted by the petitioner before the s aid authority. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.