Quashed

Nandeswar Handique v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/5467/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside orders cancelling S.K. Oil Sub-Depot licences due to violation of natural justice. The court held that while allegations existed, petitioners were not given a prior notice or opportunity of hearing before the final cancellation order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 07.06.2017 are set aside. Respondents granted liberty to proceed afresh in due process.

Nandeswar Handique Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010038372017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5467/2017

¶5

NANDESWAR HANDIQUE

¶6

SRI CHENIRAM HANDIQUE, R/O VILL-GOHAIN GAON, DHAKUAKHANA, PS-DHAKUAKHANA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT., SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, GUWAHAT-781006

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶11

3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSA

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U K DEKA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Linked Case : WP(C)/5468/2017

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

DHIREN KONWAR S/O LATE GOBIN KOWNAR R/O VILL KONWAR GAON DHAKUAKHANA PS- DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT. SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL DHAKUAKHANA DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR.U K DEKA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM and 2 ORS.

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶21

ORDER

¶22

15.06.2022

¶23

Heard Mr. U. K. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners

¶24

in both these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. S. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate,

¶25

Assam appearing for the State.

¶26

The two writ petitioners herein are the holders of S.K. Oil Sub-Depot

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

licence and on the basis of such licence, they have been dealing with S.K. Oil. On 07.06.2017, the Sub-Divisional Officer(Civil), Dhakuakhana i.e. the respondent No.3 had issued an order cancelling the S.K. Oil Sub-Depot licence issued in favour of the respective petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2017, the two writ petitions have been filed inter-alia contending that the order has been passed without serving any prior notice or giving any opportunity of being heard to the writ petitioners.

¶29

Taking note of the submission of the petitioners’ counsel this Court had passed order dated 14.09.2017 suspending the operation of the impugned orders dated 07.06.2017. Consequently, the writ petitioners have continued to operate the licence on the strength of the interim order dated 14.09.2017 passed by this Court.

¶30

Today when the cases were called up, Mr. Baruah, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam, submits, by referring to the statements made in the affidavitin-opposition of the respondent No.3, that there are serious allegations of malpractices committed by both the petitioners while operating the S.K. Oil Sub-Depot licence and the licences had also expired long back. However, it is the admitted position of fact that no prior notice was served upon the petitioners before issuing the impugned order dated 07.06.2017.

¶31

After perusal of the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.3, I find that there are serious allegations labelled against the writ petitioners. Be that as it may, since the impugned order(s) dated 07.06.2017 is based on the allegations labelled against the writ petitioners, principles of natural justice would demand that they be heard in the matter before taking a final decision as regards cancellation of their licences. The said

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

exercise had admittedly not been carried out in case of the two writ petitioners.

¶34

Therefore, without commenting on the merit of the claims and counterclaims made by the parties, purely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned orders, both dated 07.06.2017, are hereby set aside. The respondents are, however, granted liberty to proceed afresh in the matter by following the due process of law, if so advised. Until such time, any fresh decision is taken in the matter by following the due process of law, the petitioners shall be allowed to operate their S.K. Oil Sub-Depots if their licences are otherwise valid.

¶35

With the above observation, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Nandeswar Handique v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandeswar Handique v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sri Dimbeswar Das and 2 Ors. Vs Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited and 3 Ors.

M/S T K Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corp Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Ershad Ibhrahim Zaman Vs Tankeswar Das and 2 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Sahed Ahmed Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.