Disposed

Chiranjan Roy v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC27 Oct 2024WP(C)/5001/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of a fair price shop licence was challenged for breach of natural justice. The court found from official records that the enquiry report forming the basis of cancellation was not furnished to the licensee, set aside the cancellation, permitted fresh show-cause proceedings with the report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned cancellation order dated 26.07.2023 set aside; liberty to respondents to issue fresh show-cause notice with enquiry report within two weeks, else petitioner allowed to run fair price shop.

Chiranjan Roy Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010189942023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5001/2023

¶5

CHIRANJAN ROY

¶6

S/O- CHANDRA MOHAN ROY, VILLAGE- CHESSRI, P.O. BORKHOLA, P.S. BORKHOLA, DISTT.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788110

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶10

2:THE COMMISSIONER DISTRICT-CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶11

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DISTRICT- CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶12

4:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶13

5:THE SUPERINTENDENT FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DISTRICT- CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

PIN- 788001

¶16

6:THE INSPECTOR FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DISTRICT- CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 78800

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BARMAN, MR B DAS

¶18

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶19

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶20

ORDER

¶21

28.10.2024

¶22

Heard Mr. S. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 issued by the Superintendent, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Silchar, by which the petitioner’s retail licence bearing No.2375 has been cancelled, should be set aside, on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been followed.

¶23

The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner has been running a fair price shop and licence for that purpose was issued to him. However, on the basis of the enquiry report dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 26.07.2023, cancelling the petitioner’s licence.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the enquiry report had not been furnished to the petitioner to enable him to make a representation against the same, the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 should be set aside.

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for all the respondents has brought the official records and on perusal of the same, it is clear that the enquiry report dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar was not furnished to the petitioner, prior to the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 being issued.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶28

As the official records have clarified the fact that the enquiry report dated 12.07.2023 was not furnished to the petitioner prior to the issuance of the impugned order and as the same was the basis for which the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 had been issued, this Court finds that the impugned order has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned order dated 26.07.2023 issued by the respondents is set aside.

¶29

As the allegation is with regard to non-maintenance of the registers and non maintenance of stock, besides overwriting and change of values, the respondents are given the liberty to issue a fresh show-cause-notice to the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report and complaint, if so advised. If a fresh show-cause is not issued to the petitioner within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioner should be allowed to operate his Fair Price Shop.

¶30

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

Chiranjan Roy v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chiranjan Roy v. the State of Assam and 5 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

Kashem Ali and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Farukar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Ranjit Borah Vs Bishnu Kamal Bora and 3 Ors.

M/S. H.R.D. Commercial and Industrial Security Force Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Jolly Sultana Barlaskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Akhtara Begum Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.