WP(C) 964/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Seal, learned standing cou nsel, Excise department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Tal ukdar, learned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4. A lso heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. BN Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6. The petitioner, who was the licence holder of IMFL issued under the provision of the Assam Excise Act, 1910 and the Rules framed thereunder, by these petitions, has challenged the action on the part of the respondent authorities in cancelli ng the licence issued to her. In WP(C) No. 5859/2009 the consequential order dat ed 15.12.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, (Metro) cancelling the licence pursuant to the order dated 4.12.2009 issued by the Secretary to the Gov t. of Assam in Excise Department has been challenged. In WP(C) No. 964/2010, the order passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in Excise Department on 4.1 2.2009 cancelling the said licence, which is the basis for issuance of the order dated 15.12.2009 by the Deputy Commissioner, has been challenged. The petitione r has challenged the aforesaid cancellation of the licence granted to her basica lly on two grounds, firstly, that before passing the order dated 4.12.2009 by th e Secretary to the Govt. of Assam in the Excise Department no notice was issued asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted to her should not be cancelled and secondly, the Secretary being the appellate authority such order of cancellation cannot be passed by him. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned orders dat ed 4.12.2009 and 15.12.2009 passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excis e Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), respectively, has subm itted that those orders were passed without affording any opportunity to the pet itioner to show cause against the proposed action of cancellation and thereby vi olating the basic principles of natural justice. It has also been submitted by M r. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner that under the provision of the Excis e Act and the Rules framed thereunder the cancellation can be done by the licens ing authority and not by the appellate authority as has been done in the instant case. Mr. Ali, therefore, submits that the impugned orders dated 4.12.2009 and 15.12.2009 passed by the Secretary and the Deputy Commissioner, respectively, ma y be set aside. Ms Seal, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 a nd also Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 have sub mitted that since there was infraction of the Assam Excise Act and the Rules as well as the terms and conditions of the licence issued to the petitioner, the Se cretary has passed the order cancelling the licence issued to her. It has also b een submitted that no illegality has been committed by the Secretary in passing the order, he being the appellate authority. The learned counsel, however, has f airly submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 4.12.2009 and the c onsequential order dated 15.12.2009, no notice was issued to the petitioner to s how cause as to why the licence granted to her should not be cancelled detailing the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also the t erms and conditions of the licence. The learned counsel further submits that in the event this Court finds that the order passed by the Secretary requires inter ference because of non issuance of notice to show cause, the licensing authority may be given liberty to initiate fresh process for cancellation as there are se rious violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the terms and conditions of license. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 has submitted that initially there was a proceeding initiated against the petitioner, in which the petitioner was made known the allegation. The order thereafter was passed on 13 .3.2009 by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department directing shif ting of the business premises on the ground of violation of the provisions of th e Assam Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder as well as the terms and cond itions of the licence and, therefore, according to the learned counsel the petit ioner cannot complain that she has been condemned unheard. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 13.3. 2009 by which the petitioner was directed to shift the business premises from on e place to another has been interfered with by this Court vide judgment and orde r dated 15.9.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 1700/2009, whereby and whereunder the said order has been set aside. By the said judgment and order the authority, however , was given the liberty to initiate the process for cancellation of the licence, which the Secretary has done without issuing any notice thereby violating the p rinciples of natural justice. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and also perused the pl eadings of the parties. It appears that initially there were certain allegations against the petitioner for violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and also violation of t he provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The authority upon hea ring the parties passed the order directing shifting the business premises from the existing site to another suitable site which was communicated by the Deputy Secretary vide communication dated 13.3.2009. It appears from the said communica tion dated 13.3.2009, which was put to challenge in WP(C) No. 1700/2009 by the p resent petitioner, that the authority had found that there was violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules to some extent without, however, indicating or r ecoding any definite finding relating to any violation of the Assam Excise Act a nd the Rules framed thereunder or the violation of the terms and conditions of t he licence. The earlier proceeding was for shifting of the business premises fro m one place to another and not for cancellation of the licence issued to the pet itioner. The petitioner was never at any point of time informed that her licence is proposed to be cancelled for infraction of any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed and/or for violation of the terms and conditions of the lic ence. Section 29 of the Assam Excise Act, 1910 authorises the licensing authority to c ancel or suspend the licence issued under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Before, however, cancellation of the licence granted t o a licensee the notice asking the licensee to show cause as to why such licence should not be cancelled, indicating the alleged infraction of the law and/or th e terms and conditions of the licence, is the minimum requirement, as the person cannot be condemned unheard. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents a uthorities it is evident that before passing the order of cancellation dated 4.1 2.2009 and the consequential order dated 15.12.2009 no opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted to her should not be cancelled, intimating her the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and/or the terms and conditions of the licence. Int imation of the grounds for cancellation to the licensee is also necessary so tha t effective representation can be made by the licensee to demonstrate that there is no infraction as alleged in such show cause notice. The contention of Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 that since in the earlier proceeding for shifting of the business premises from one place to another, the petitioner was heard, she cannot complain that she was not informed about the cancellation before passing such order of cancellation, cannot be accepted, as already noticed above, the earlier proceeding was for shi fting the business premises. There was also no clear finding recorded by any of the authorities that there was infraction of the Act and the Rules framed thereu nder and/or the terms and conditions of the licence. The earlier communication d ated 13.3.2009 also does not reflect which of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and/or the terms and conditions of the licence have been violated by the petitioner. That being the position, the order dated 4.12.2009 and 15.12.2009 passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), respectively, cannot stand the scrutiny of law, the same having been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice and hence those are set aside. The question whether the Secretary being the appellate authority can initiate an d pass the order of cancellation has not been gone into in the present proceedin g as Ms Seal, learned standing counsel, Excise Department has submitted that in the event of giving liberty to initiate a fresh process for cancellation such pr ocess shall be initiated by the licensing authority. The aforesaid impugned orders passed on 4.12.2009 and 15.12.2009 by the Secretar y to the Govt. of Assam, Excise Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup ( Metro), respectively, having been interfered with on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, it is open to the licensing authority to init iate fresh process for cancellation of the licence, if there is any infraction o f the Assam Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder and/or the terms and cond itions of the licence. This would, however, be made in accordance with law. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to apply for renewal of the licence, o n which, if approached, the authority will take appropriate decision. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed as indicated above. No costs.