Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8487 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 12 November, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                                      Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010032232025




                                                               2025:GAU-AS:15255

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/915/2025

         JAMSHER ALI
         S/O- MUJAFAR, A R/O - VILL. - KURSHAKATI NO. 1 P,O. KAMALSING P.S. -
         GOSSAIGAON DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, BTR, ASSAM PIN - 783360



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD,
         CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,
         GUWAHATI -06

         2:THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL
          BTR
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          BTR
          KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM

         3:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL)
          GOSSAIGAON SUB-DIVISION
          P.O. - GOSSAIGAON
          DIST. KOKRAJHAR
         ASSAM
          PIN 783360

         4:THE CHD CUM JOINT DIRECTOR
          FOOD
          CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
          BTC
          KOKRAJHAR

         5:THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
                                                             Page No.# 2/7

      FOOD
      CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
      GOSSAIGAON
      DIST
      KOKRAJHAR
      BTR
      ASSAM

     6:THE AREA INSPECTOR
      CONCERNED
      SUB-INSPECTOR
      FOOD
      CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
      GOSSAIGAON
      DIST- KOKRAJHAR
      BTR
     ASSAM




                             BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH



For the Petitioner(s)    : Mr. M.U. Mahmud, Advocate


For the Respondent(s)    : Ms. B. Bhuiyan, Sr. Advocate
                          Mr. G. Bokolial, Govt. Advocate


Date on which judgment was reserved : NA

Date of pronouncement of judgment     : 12.11.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment?       : NA

Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced?                           : Yes


                        JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Page No.# 3/7

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Ms. B. Bhuiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 16.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as, "the impugned order") whereby the respondent No. 5 had cancelled the retail PDS License bearing No. GSM-8/2015/32 issued to the petitioner for the reasons categorically stated in the said order.

3. Mr. M. U. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is being assailed on the ground that the very proceedings, i.e., right from the issuance of the show cause notice to the passing of the impugned order were behind the back of the petitioner. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the show cause notice was based upon certain purported complaints and a report, but neither the purported complaints nor the report was furnished to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner was not in a proper position to defend his case by submitting a reply. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

4. Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing Page No.# 4/7

on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the petitioner had indulged in activities which were not only prejudicial to the department, but also to the beneficiaries inasmuch as there were complaints wherein the petitioner was alleged to demand money from the beneficiaries and upon due enquiry, the said complaints were found to be true and as such, the question of interference with the impugned order does not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner in his reply did not seek for the complaints or the report and as such, without the prejudice being shown by the petitioner, the question of raising the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise.

5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

6. This Court would not like to go into the allegations and counter- allegations made in the instant proceedings, as to whether, the petitioner had defrauded the beneficiaries or the veracity of the report on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

7. Be that as it may, it is seen that there were certain complaints and the said complaint were verified on the basis of a report. If those are the materials on which the respondents wanted to rely upon, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to defend the allegations made against him as well as the report which was the Page No.# 5/7

basis of the show cause notice.

8. This Court has also taken note of the impugned order wherein it is also seen that on the basis of the report being submitted, the impugned order was passed. Under such circumstances, it apparently appears that the rights of the petitioner to be provided a reasonable opportunity have been violated.

9. It is, however, seen from a perusal of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, wherein the complaints as well as the report have been duly enclosed. Taking into account that now the petitioner has the complaints as well as the report on the basis of which the show cause notice as well as the impugned order were issued, the petitioner can now be permitted to submit a fresh reply and appropriate directions can be passed upon the concerned Respondent Authorities to consider the said reply and thereupon take a decision as deemed fit, in accordance with law.

10. It is also the opinion of this Court that taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to run his Fair Price Shop till an adjudication is made.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions:

Page No.# 6/7

(i) The petitioner herein is given the liberty to file a reply within a period of 30 days from today to the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024. It is observed that if the petitioner fails to file the said reply within the said period, i.e. on or before

12.12.2025, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 shall continue to hold the field.

(ii) The respondents herein, more particularly, respondent No. 5, is directed to decide the said reply so submitted by the petitioner within 60 days from the date on which the petitioner submits the reply (if submitted within the time so permitted herein above).

(iii) This Court further observes that the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 which has been the subject matter of the present challenge shall be subject to outcome of the said decision to be taken pursuant to the reply so submitted (if submitted within the time so permitted herein above), and if no reply is submitted within the time so stipulated herein above, the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 shall hold the field.

(iv) The order to be passed by the respondent No. 5 shall contain due reason by taking into account the reply (if submitted within the time permitted herein above) by the petitioner.

Page No.# 7/7

(v) The judgment so passed herein, however, shall not influence the Respondent Authorities in deciding the reply to the show cause notice dated 16.11.2024.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant