[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 19 December, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010286222025
2025:GAU-AS:17788
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7430/2025
MS SONOWAL GAS AGENCY
DHAKUAKHANA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI LAKHESWAR
SONOWAL, S/O GANGESWAR SONOWAL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O
VILL KEKURI, KACHARI, P.O. KEKURI, DHAKUAKHANA, DIST.
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD,
PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPTT., ULUBARI,
GUWAHATI 07
2:THE DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES
AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
4:THE CO- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHAKUAKHANA
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
5:THE AREA OFFICER
FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
DHAKUAKHANA
NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
6:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
IOCL
TINSUKIA
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-78612
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Khanikar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Chetia, Government Advocate
: Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate
· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 19.12.2025
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No
· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. A. Khanikar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on
behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. I have also heard Mr. M. Sharma, the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6.
2. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent
No.4 in issuance of a Show Cause Notice vide a communication dated
16.12.2025 as well as the order dated 17.12.2025 whereby the license of the
Page No.# 3/6
Petitioner bearing License No.DS-1-B/ATA/R/2001-06/Pt-I/7 was suspended
until further orders.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the power so
exercised by the Respondent No.4 is absolutely without jurisdiction and
authority inasmuch as, the said power at best could have been exercised by
the Sales Officer of the Indian Oil Corporation and not by the Respondent
No.4.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in terms
with the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing Control) Order, 1982, the limited
power available upon an Officer duly authorized under that Order is to carry
out entry, search and seizure and nothing beyond that.
5. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels for the Respondents
insofar as the authority of the Respondent No.4 to issue the Show Cause
proceedings dated 16.12.2025 as well as the order dated 17.12.2025.
6. Attention of this Court have been drawn to a judgment of the learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.09.2018 in WP(C) No.2727/2018
wherein the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had duly decided the
said issue. Paragraph Nos. 20 to 22 of the said judgment being relevant are
reproduced herein under:
"20. If the said overriding effect of LPG Order 2000 is taken into
consideration, the penal provision of any Order under section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 made by a State Government, becomes redundant so
Page No.# 4/6
far distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas is concerned even if it is covered
under Public Distribution System.
21. The cancellation of license as stipulated under Clause 11 of ATA (L & C)
Order 1982 amounts to cancellation of the license issued by the Central
Government Oil Company to the LPG distributors under it. The Revised
Marketing Discipline Guideline categorizes various irregularities as hereinabove
stated and for such irregularities separate punitive actions are stipulated in the
said Guideline considering the gravity of the offence. From the affidavit-in-
opposition filed by the respondent No.5 it is found that as per the Revised
Marketing Discipline Guideline, 2015 for LPG distributorship with effect from
September, 2017, the irregularities done by the petitioner agency falls under
Clause 2.2.10 under the heading Major Irregularities and the penalty is
specified under Clause 3.2.(i) of the said Guideline which is fine equivalent to
20% average monthly distributor's commission. Under such circumstances the
action of the respondent No.4 for cancellation of the license of the petitioner
agency is totally contradictory which in my considered opinion cannot be
accepted on the enlarged principles of equity and under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Had there been no such non obstante clause in Clause
14 referred hereinabove then it would have been a separate issue but
introduction of such non obstante clause is with the purpose for removing such
contrary provision viz the Clause 11 (Suspension and Cancellation of Licence)
of the ATA (L & C) Order 1982 so far LPG distributorship distributing LPG under
Public Distribution System is concerned.
22. In the light of the said discussion I am of the considered opinion that
the power of the officials as authorized under the ATA (L & C) Order 1982
must be confined to the extent of the one authorized by the notification
No.FSA 3572001/153 dated 19.02.2001, i.e., to the extent of entry, search and
seizure under Clause 13 (1) of the LPG Order 2000. It would not be out of
Page No.# 5/6
place to mention here that in the LPG Order 2000, Clause 13 (2) specifically
authorizes the Sales Officers of a Government Oil Company to secure
compliance of the said LPG Order 2000 by the distributor appointed under the
Public Distribution System. The LPG, under the ATA (L & C) Order 1982 is an
item which falls under Public Distribution System and as such petitioner is
insulated from the action of imposing penalty by the State Government officers
so authorized under the said notification dated 19.02.2001 and also under the
ATA (L & C) Order 1982. However, the said officers are authorized as
hereinabove stated with the power of entry, search and seizure and if there is
any prima-facie proof of any irregularity then such officers are authorized to
inform the Sales Officers of the Government Oil Company as stipulated under
Chapter 5, clause-v of the Revised Marketing Discipline Guideline, 2015 which
has its statutory force for imposing penalty."
7. From the above quoted observations made by the learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court, it is apparent that the power of the Respondent No.4 at
best would be entry, search and seizure and not to initiate any action for
suspension or cancellation of the license.
8. Consequently, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition
with the following observations and directions:
(i) The order dated 17.12.2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 thereby
suspending the license of the Petitioner bearing license No.DS-1-
B/ATA/R/2001-06/Pt-I/7 stands set aside and quashed.
(ii) The Show Cause proceedings so initiated by the Respondent No.4
dated 16.12.2025 for cancellation of the license of the Petitioner is also set
Page No.# 6/6
aside and quashed.
Bijoy Saha Bijoy Saha
Comparing Assistant
