Allowed

Jayful Nessa v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC17 Sept 2024WP(C)/4732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair Price Shop licence cancelled by SDO with prior Deputy Commissioner approval. Court held appeal before Deputy Commissioner would be futile since he had approved the order; treated the appeal as one under clause 29(c) and directed the Commissioner to decide it within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner directed to consider the petitioner's appeal (Annexure-8) and pass a speaking order within four weeks on receipt of certified copy of this order.

Jayful Nessa Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010189262024

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4732/2024

¶5

JAYFUL NESSA W/O- ABDUL BATEN AHMED, VILL.- BHATNAPAITY, PO- KADAMTOLA, PS- ALOPATI CHAR, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASSAM GUWAHATI-05.

¶9

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA BARPETA ASSAM- 781302.

¶10

4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SADAR) BARPETA ASSAM.

¶11

5:THE SUPTD. OF FCS AND CA BI(EO) ASSAM SRIMANTAPUR

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

GHY-32. 6:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BARPETA ASSAM- 781301. 7:THE SUPPLY INSPECTOR FOOD CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BARPETA ASSAM. 8:THE AREA OFFICER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BARPETA ASSAM- 781301. 9:THE SECRETARY M/S BAGHMARA CHAR GPSS LIMITED VILL- BAGHMARA P.S.- ALOPATI CHAR DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM- 781328

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M KHAN, MR S PRODHANI,MR T T MONI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 18.09.2024

¶19

Heard Mr. S Islam learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner’s Fair Price Shop license for village Bhatnapaity char under M/S Baghmara Char GPSS ltd in the district of Barpeta was

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

cancelled by the SDO (Sadar) Barpeta by an order dated 05.01.2024.

¶23

In the aforesaid backdrop, though appeal of the petitioner ought to have been preferred before the Deputy Commissioner under clause 29(b), however, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under clause 29(c) before the Commissioner. Such appeal has not yet been decided and it is the grievance of the petitioner. Mr. Gogoi learned counsel submits that the order being passed by the SDO generally should lie to the Deputy Commissioner under clause 29(b).

¶24

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the Deputy Commissioner had already approved the decision of the SDO, it will be a futile exercise.

¶25

The impugned order dated 05.01.2024 reflects that prior to passing of the aforesaid impugned order approval of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta was taken. In terms of the Assam Public Distribution Order, 1982, hereinafter referred to as “Order 1982”, prescribes a remedy of appeal under Clause 29(b) before the Deputy Commissioner from a order of SDO (Sadar), Barpeta and under clause 29(c) of the Public Order, 1982 an appellate provision is given against order of Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology Department.

¶26

This court is of the considered opinion that once the Deputy Commissioner had applied its mind to the decision of the SDO (Sadar) and approved such decision, though appeal generally lies to the Deputy Commissioner under Clause 29(b) of the Order 1982, however, such appeal shall not be an effacious remedy and in the considered opinion of this court, the approval of the Deputy Commissioner to the order dated 05.01.2024 issued by the SDO (sadar) can be treated in the given facts as

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

the approval/decision of the Deputy Commissioner itself. Therefore the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in arguing that an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner shall be futile.

¶29

This court has also not found any provision prescribing approval by the Deputy Commissioner under Order 1982 or under any order/provision.

¶30

Be that as it may, in the aforesaid backdrop, it is now the commissioner is required to consider the appeal of the petitioner as an appeal under clause 29(c) of Order, 1985. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed by directing the commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies Consumer Affairs and Legal Metrology to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner (Annexure- 8) and pass a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioner.

¶31

This disposes the writ petition.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

Comparing Assistant

Jayful Nessa v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayful Nessa v. the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dulal Uddin Ahmed and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Radhika Express Service Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Babul Sk @ Babu Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Tusti Fondation and Anr. Vs Oil India Limited (Oil) and 3 Ors.

Bijan Bihari Paul Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manika Paul Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.