Hajrat Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOOD, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6.

¶10

2:ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MORIGAON PIN-782105 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDANT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES MORIGAON PIN-782105 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BRANCH MORIGAON PIN- 782105 ASSAM 5:THE INSPECTOR

¶11

Page No.# 2/7

¶12

FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS MORIGAON DISTRICT PIN- 782105 ASSAM

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA,

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM,

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 05-06-2026

¶18

Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

¶19

The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 22.01.2024, passed by the respondent No.4, whereby the PDS Retail Licence standing in the name of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 01.07.2025, issued by the Appellate Authority i.e., Appellate Authority & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs Department, which upheld the cancellation order dated 22.01.20024, issued by the District Commissioner, Morigaon in respect of the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner is a PDS retail licensee holder vide licence No. MS/PDS 1/1998. A complaint regarding misappropriation of rice by the agents of the FPS had been sent by an email dated 31.10.2022 to ADGP, VAC, Assam requesting an investigation about certain malpractices being carried out by the petitioner.

¶21

Page No.# 3/7

¶22

After receipt of the email and pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, the Additional D.C. and ADM, Morigaon was entrusted to cause an enquiry into the aforesaid allegation against the petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional D.M, Morigaon and the officials of FCS & CA on various dates like 11.11.2022, 10.11.2022 and 19.10.2022 respectively. An enquiry report dated 03.12.2022 was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon by the Additional Deputy. Commissioner and A.D.M, Morigaon.

¶23

After receipt of the aforesaid enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon vide its order dated 22.12.2022, tagged the beneficiaries of the petitioner's FPS with the nearest FPS with immediate effect. It is contended by the petitioner that though the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2022, mentioned that the petitioner's FPSD has already been suspended but no such suspension order was received by the petitioner prior to the date of tagging i.e. 22.12.2022. Subsequently, after the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, issued a letter dated 09.03.2022, requesting Show Cause within 7 days, with certain allegations about certain malpractices of the petitioner. On receipt of the aforesaid Show Cause notice, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.03.2023 replied to the aforesaid Show Cause notice, denying the allegations. However, on 22.01.2024, the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon, issued the impugned order whereby, on the basis of the enquiry report submitted earlier by the ADC and ADM, Morigaon, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled with immediate effect.

¶24

Being aggrieved with the order dated 22.01.2024, the petitioner had approached the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam,

¶25

Page No.# 4/7

¶26

Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department by filing his statutory appeal on 26.02.2024. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, vide its order dated 01.07.2025, upholding the order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Morigaon. In view of the aforesaid cancellation of his licence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶27

Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has primarily submitted that though the impugned order of cancellation was passed by the Deputy Commission, which was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs Department, but the same was done without providing the enquiry report to the petitioner. He submits that since the whole issue of cancellation of licence is based on enquiry report, a copy of the enquiry report should have been given to the petitioner to explain his position. He submits that by such non providing of the enquiry report, the principle of nature of justice has been denied to the petitioner and on that ground alone, the impugned cancellation order should be set aside. In addition to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though enquiry was conducted against 43 persons on similar grounds, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities against 24 persons. He submits that those 24 persons were also similarly situated as the petitioner in the instant case.

¶28

He submits that due to non-availability of the Aadhar cards of various beneficiaries, there was some difficulty in maintaining the manual stock register, however, the stocks were distributed by using E-POS. He submits that as far as

¶29

Page No.# 5/7

¶30

other 24 persons also, they too have used the same mechanism for distribution of the stocks to the beneficiaries. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that petition being not in fault and he has, in fact, been maintaining and distributing his stocks by E-POS, the cancellation of the petitioner is not tenable under the law and therefore, the same should be set aside.

¶31

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is mandated under the law that enquiry report on the basis of which a penal action has been taken must be provided to the persons against whom the order has been passed, he has referred to the case of Saha Alom Laskar V. The State of Assam (WP(C) No.7474/2022), decided by the Gauhati High Court on 22.03.2023.

¶32

Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has fairly submitted that since the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court has already held that non submission of an enquiry report before taking any penal action is not a correct law, an opportunity should be given to the respondent authorities to go ahead with the Show Cause notice after providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner.

¶33

In the case of Saha Alom Laskar(Supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court in paragraph-12, held follows: -

¶34

“12. A specific query was made to the learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam as to whether the copy of the Enquiry Report dated 21.10.2022 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner & Executive Magistrate, Silchar was furnished to the petitioner seeking his explanations to the findings arrived at in the said Enquiry Report by the said authority, at any time anterior to the passing of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022. The answer is not in the

¶35

Page No.# 6/7

¶36

affirmative. Meaning thereby, the petitioner did not get any prior opportunity to furnish his explanations to the findings arrived at in the Enquiry Report dated 21.10.2022 at any prior point of time before passing of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022. As the respondent no. 3 as the Licensing Authority did not hear the petitioner as the licensee and made the said Enquiry Report as the basis of his decision to pass the impugned order of cancellation, this Court is of the considered view that the passing of the impugned order dated 10.11.2022 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside on that ground. The impugned order dated 10.11.2022 is accordingly set aside.”

¶37

Taking into account the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties as well as the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition merits interference by this Court and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 22.01.2024 and 01.07.2025, are hereby set aside and quashed.

¶38

Subsequently, since the impugned orders have been set aside, the respondent authorities shall now proceed from the stage of interference by furnishing a copy of an enquiry report dated 22.12.2022 to the petitioner immediately, preferably within a period of 15(fifteen) days on receipt of a certified copy of this order, to enable the petitioner to provide his explanations to the Show Cause notice dated 09.03.2023 within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of receipt of an enquiry report.

¶39

In the event, the petitioner submits his fresh reply to the Show Cause notice in consideration of the enquiry report within 15(fifteen) days, the respondent authorities shall proceed to consider the same and pass a Speaking Order(s) to bring the process initiated by the Show Cause notice dated

¶40

Page No.# 7/7

¶41

09.03.2023 to its logical conclusion within a reasonable period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the reply of the Show Cause notice, if so submitted. In the event, the petitioner does not respond to the Show Cause notice after receipt of the enquiry report within 15(fifteen) days, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to decide the matter on the basis of the materials available before them.

¶42

Needless to mention that the Speaking Order(s) so passed shall be communicated to the petitioner forthwith.

¶43

In terms of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Comparing Assistant

Hajrat Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajrat Ali v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naser Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Jyotish Ch. Sarkar Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Sri Hontu Bora Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Supta Dey Vs the Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Surajit Nath Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Rajkumar Bordoloi Vs Tiwa Autonomous Council and Anr.