WP(C) 3816/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The writ petitioners, six in number, who were granted lincence by the licencing authority under the provisions of Assam Public Distribution Article Order 1982(i n short, 1982 Control Order) by this petition are praying for a direction to the respondents, particularly the respondent Nos.6 & 7, that is the Executive Offic er, Rangapani No.2 G.P.S.S. Ltd and Secretary of said Society to allot their quo ta of PDS items for distribution to the share-holders, pursuant to the licence g ranted to them. I have heard Mr R Ali, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Mrs VL Singha, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7. Also hea rd Mr MH Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.8 to 17. Learned counsel for petitioners, referring to averments made in the peti tion as well as the conditions of licence issued by the licencing authority unde r the 1982 Control Order, has submitted that since there is no allegation relati ng to violation of any terms & conditions of the licence, the authority cannot, on their sweet-will, refuse to allot the quota of PDS items for distribution to the share-holders of the society. According to learned counsel, despite issuance of licence, the PDS items have not been allotted to petitioners, though have be en allotted to another licencee, appointed along with the petitioners, for distr ibution to share-holders of the society. Learned counsel, therefore, submits tha t necessary direction may be issued to the respondents, particularly the respond ent Nos.6 & 7 to allot the quota of PDS items to the petitioners for distributio n as per their entitlement under the licence. Learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7, referring to averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.6 & 7 and also placing reliance on complaints lodged by some of the share-holders of t he society, has submitted that since a dispute has been raised relating to the m anner of appointment of the petitioners as licencee under the provisions of the 1982 Control Order, the position, as stood prior to such appointment, was direct ed to be continued until such complaints are enquired into and necessary order i s passed. Learned State counsel, however, has submitted that since no quantity o f PDS item has ever been allotted to the petitioners pursuant to issuance of lic ence to them, naturally there is no question of making any allegation relating t o violation of the terms & conditions of the licence. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 17, referring to the averments m ade in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the said respondents, have also subm itted that the petitioners and another person were issued with the licence for d istribution of PDS items under the provisions of 1982 Control Order at the insta nce of Chairman of the ad-hoc committee of the society in question without infor ming the other members of the ad-hoc committee and also the share-holders of the society, and since such appointment was made surreptitiously at the instance of the Chairman, some complaints have been lodged before the Sub-divisional Office r(C) as well as the Executive Officer of the society, due to which the petitione rs have not been allotted any PDS item though they have been granted licence for that purpose. Learned counsel further submits that the authorities may be direc ted to make an enquiry as to the manner in which the petitioners were granted li cence under the provisions of 1982 Control Order and till such time this Court m ay not issue any direction to the respondent Nos.6 & 7 for allotment of PDS item s to the petitioners. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings. Also perused the complaints, seven in number, copie s of which are produced by learned State counsel, during the course of hearing, which are the bases for not allotting PDS items for distribution to the petition er-licencees. There is no dispute that the licences were issued in the name of t he petitioners and another person viz. Gobinda Sarkar for distribution of PDS it ems in respect of Rangapani No.2 G.P.S.S. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that t he petitioners though have been granted licence no PDS item has ever been allott ed to them for distribution. Therefore, there is no allegation relating to viola tion of any terms & conditions of the licence granted to the petitioners under t he provisions of 1982 Control Order. As noticed above, the PDS items have not been allotted to the petitioner s, in view of the aforesaid complaints lodged by certain shareholders of the soc iety in question relating to the manner of appointment of the petitioners as lic encee. There is absolutely no allegation relating to violation of any of the ter ms and conditions of the licence. Since a licence has been issued under the provisions of 1982 Control Ord er, the petitioners have acquired the right to carry on their business in terms of the licence issued. A licence issued can be revoked or suspended by the licen cing authority, subject to the conditions stipulated in the 1982 Control Order. As noticed above, there is no allegation of violation of any of the term s and conditions of the licence. The ground that proper procedure has not been followed while appointing the petitioners as licencee cannot be a ground for non-allotment of the PDS item s for distribution, in terms of licence granted under the provisions of 1982 Con trol Order. If licences are not issued after observing the required formalities , if any, required to be observed, the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal und er clause 29 of the 1982 Control Order before the appellate authority, which has not been done till date. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a directi on to respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.6 & 7 to allot the PDS items to the petitioners till the continuation of the licences granted to them and as per their entitlement. It would, however, not preclude the newly impleaded resp ondents from filing appeal before the appellate authority, as provided under cla use 29 of 1982 Control Order. It also appears that the period of licence is up-to 31 March 2011. The authority, therefore, in the event of granting fresh licence or in the event of renewal of the existing licences issued in favour of the petitioners, shall veri fy whether the procedure, if any required to be followed while issuing such lice nces, has been followed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.