WP(C) 2359/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. C Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr . J Handique, learned Govt. Advocate who represent the respondents. 2. The petitioner who was a fair price shop licencee under the provisions o f the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as ’the 1982 Order’) challenges the order dated 11.3.2003 (Annexure-II) whereby the petitioners licence has been cancelled. 3. The cancellation order was preceded by a communication dated 2.11.2002 w herein it was alleged that the licencee had not properly distributed the allotte d rice amongst the consumers and had also sold S K Oil at a higher price. Accord ingly it was alleged that licence conditions were violated by the petitioner. Th e licence was also ordered to be suspended and the petitioner was asked to show cause on the charges leveled in the letter of 2nd November 2002. 4. It is contended by Mr. Goswami that the licencee had given his reply on 6.11.2002 wherein it was contended that false allegations have been made against the petitioner by vested groups who wanted the cancellation of the petitioner’s licence. It is also submitted that show cause communication was based on an inq uiry report of the Sub-Inspector, Food and Civil Supplies, Rowta but the copy of the said inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. 5. I find from the provisions of Clause 15(2) of the 1982 Order that lice nce cannot be cancelled unless the licencee has been given a reasonable opportun ity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation. Therefore a reasonabl e opportunity is a sine qua non for ordering cancellation of a PDS licence. 6. But in the instant case it is seen that while rejecting the petitioner’s reply, the Authority had considered the inquiry report of the Sub-Inspector, Fo od and Civil Supplies, Rowta to reach an adverse conclusion against the licencee . But the copy of the said report was never made available to the petitioner eit her at the show cause stage or even at the stage when the reply of the petitione r was under consideration by the respondents. 7. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that no reaso nable opportunity was afforded to the licencee before his licence was cancelled by the impugned order dated 11.3.2003 and therefore there has been an infringeme nt of the requirement of Clause 15(2) of the 1982 Order. 8. In view of above conclusion, I find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed by quashing the impugned order dated 11.3.2003 passed by the SDO (Civil), Odalguri. It is ordered accordingly. 9. The case is disposed of in the above terms.