WP(C) 3602/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(oral) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.10.2007 passed by the Superintendent, Baksa District canceling the licence of the petitioner is sued under Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order 1982 and also order dated 19.7.2008 passed by the Council head of the department, Food, Civil Supplies a nd Consumer Affairs, BTC, Kokrajhar, affirming the superintendent’s order being the appellate authority. 2. Heard Shri P B Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.C hetri, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. As could be gathered from the documents, the fair price shop of the peti tioner was visited by the Superintendent of Food and Civil Supplies, Tamulpur on 4.7.2007 and detected that the petitioner did not display the stock and price b oard and also did not maintain the stock register and certain irregularities wer e also noticed in the distribution of fair price articles. After one week of the inspection, the same authority i.e. Superintendent, suspended the licence of t he petitioner and thereafter issued show cause notice on 21.8.2007. In response to the said notice the petitioner submitted his explanation on 2.9.2007. However , the Superintendent did not take into consideration the explanation on the grou nd that the reply was submitted after seven days time. Ignoring the explanation , the Superintendent cancelled the licence and fair price agency of the petition er vide impugned order dated 9.10.2007. 4. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred and the appellate a uthority also did not allow the appeal and affirmed the Superintendent’s order. 5. In the writ petition, it has been categorically averred that the show ca use notice dated 21.8.07 was received on 26.8.07 through the Samabai Samitee and thereafter the reply was submitted within seven days time. In this way, petitio ner has averred that reply was submitted within time. However, this averment has not been specifically denied by the respondents in their affidavit. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the defence version was totally left out of consideration by the licenceing authority. As noted earlier, the Su perintendent had himself inspected the fair price shop without any specific alle gation from the consumer and the same authority had taken punitive action. Under such circumstances the appellate authority ought to have examined the case with little caution. Apparently neither the licencing authority nor the appellate au thority made any attempt to take the version of the consumers to ascertain wheth er the petitioner was actually involved in mis-appropriation of PDS articles. O n the other hand, petitioner has submitted a copy of the representation signed b y as many as 100 consumes declaring that they were regularly getting PDS article s. This representation was submitted to the Superintendent of Food and Civil Sup plies Deptt. Tamulpur but there is no discussion about the said representatio n in the impugned orders. 7. Having regard to all aspects of the matter, the appellate authority i.e. Council head of the department, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Ko krajahr is directed to reconsider the appeal by way of giving opportunity of hea ring to the petitioner. If necessary the appellate authority may also record the statement of few consumers and after hearing both parties, pass appropriate o rder as may seem fit and proper. For the purpose of rehearing the appeal the imp ugned orders are hereby set aside. 8. With the aforesaid directions writ petition stands disposed of.