WP(C) 5891/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY The petitioner, who has been issued with the license to deal with the PDS items under the provisions of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (i n short, 1982 Control Orders), by the present petition has challenged the order dated 13th February, 2009 issued by the Assistant Director, Food, Civil Supplie s and Consumer Affairs, Gossaigaon, canceling the said license issued to him and also the order dated 17th December, 2009 passed by the appellate authority reje cting the appeal preferred by him challenging the order of cancellation of licen se dated 13th February, 2009. I have heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Das , learned Standing Counsel, BTC appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6. Th e other respondents are not represented. Referring to the impugned order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Assistan t Director, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said o rder was passed on the ground that the petitioner has disobeyed the official ins tructions to stay in Failaguri village permanently for dealing with the PDS item s regularly, apart from violating the terms and conditions of the license grante d to him under the 1982 Control Orders without, however, specifying which of the terms and conditions have been violated by him. It has been submitted by the l earned counsel that in fact pursuant to some complain lodged by certain consumer s, an enquiry was earlier conducted by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, pursuant to which a report dated 6th June, 2008 was submitted with the finding that there was no violation of any of the terms and conditions of the license gr anted or any of the provisions of the 1982 Control Orders, which authority, howe ver, without issuing any notice and without intimating the petitioner, subsequen tly submitted another report dated 14th July, 2008 with the finding that the pet itioner is not regular in opening his Fair Price Shop as well as he harassed the consumers. The learned counsel submits that it appears from the order passed b y the Assistant Director dated 13th February, 2009 that the license has been can celled based on the said report dated 14th July, 2008 without even furnishing th e copy thereof. It has also been submitted that though all those facts were bro ught to the notice of the appellate authority, it has simply rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned orders need to be set aside. Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3, 5 and 6 pr oducing the relevant records has submitted that the concerned consumers lodged s everal complains against the petitioner, pursuant to which an enquiry was conduc ted and the report dated 14th July, 2008 was submitted by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 25th August, 2008 asking the petitioner as to why the license should not be can celled. According to Mr. Das, since the licensing authority has found that the order issued by the authority has not been obeyed by the licensee and there is v iolation of the terms and conditions of the license, the impugned order dated 13 th February, 2009 has been passed canceling the license issued to the petitioner . It has also been submitted that the appellate authority, therefore, has right ly refused to interfere with the order of cancellation dated 13th February, 2009 . Reply to the query made by the Court, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the responden t Nos.3, 5 and 6 has submitted that it is a fact that the Inspect of Food and Ci vil Supplies, pursuant to his enquiry conducted, initially submitted his report on 6th June, 2008 with the finding that there is no violation of any of the cond itions of the license, who, however, after making a detailed enquiry submitted a nother report dated 14th July, 2008 with the finding that the petitioner has vio lated the terms and conditions of the license, as he kept the Fair Price Shop cl osed by leaving the place permanently. The learned counsel has also fairly submi tted that in the subsequent enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, which culminates in the report dated 14th July, 2008, the petitioner was not heard. It has also been fairly submitted that the copy of the said repo rt dated 14th July, 2008 was also not furnished to the petitioner before passing the aforesaid order at any time. It appears from the materials made available on record that the licensing author ity vide order dated 7th March, 2008 suspended the license issued to the petitio ner under the 1982 Control Orders. An enquiry was thereafter, conducted into t he allegation levelled against the petitioner. The Inspector, Food and Civil Su pplies on 6th June, 2008 submitted the report with a finding that the petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of the license. The said report, howe ver, has subsequently been changed by the Inspector by submitting another report dated 14th July, 2008, wherein it has been recorded that the petitioner has vio lated the terms and conditions of the license, as he has kept the Fair Price Sop closed. As noticed above, the subsequent enquiry, on the basis of which report dated 14th July, 2008 was submitted, was conducted without any notice to the pe titioner and in his absence. The impugned order dated 13th February, 2009 passed by the Assistant Director re veals that the said order was passed based on the subsequent report of the Inspe ctor of Food and Civil Supplies, which report was submitted by the Inspector pur suant to an enquiry conducted behind the back of the petitioner and even without furnishing the copy of the enquiry report dated 14th July, 2008. The impugned o rder dated 13th February, 2009 also does not reveal the manner in which or which of the terms and conditions of the license have been violated by the petitioner , though it has been stated that the petitioner has also violated the terms and conditions of the license. The appellate authority while passing the impugned o rder dated 17th December, 2009 has not taken into consideration those aspects of the matter. That being the position, the impugned orders dated 13th February, 2009 and 17th December, 2009 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the licensing authority to decide the proceeding initiated pursuant to the show cause notice issued on 2 5th August, 2008 after making necessary enquiry and by allowing the petitioner t o participate in such enquiry. The said process is directed to be completed wit hin a period of 7 (seven) weeks from today. Since the license issued to the petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 7 th March, 2008, the said position shall continue till the fresh order is passed by the licensing authority. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost s.