Statutory authorities must adhere to procedural safeguards, including issuing a show cause notice before terminating licenses, to ensure fairness and compliance with the law.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1.Petitioner was appointed as a dealer of Fair Price Shop in terms of Vacancy Notification dated 24^th of January, 2018. The licence was issued in favour of the petitioner by the concerned department on 9^th of January, 2023. During the subsistence of such business, the petitioner was served with a notice of personal hearing by Sub- Divisional Controller (F & S) concerned dated 4^th March, 2024. The petitioner appeared before the authority for hearing and after the hearing is concluded the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) has terminated the licence of the petitioner vides order dated 7^th March, 2024, on the ground that the petitioner does not having the requisite Bank balance in his account to continue the business. Against the order of termination, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Controller. The District Controller has given hearing to the petitioner and passed an order on 25^th of April, 2024 affirming the order of the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) concerned. Against the order of the District Controller, the petitioner again approached to the Second Appellate Authority i.e. the DDP & S, F&S Department, and Government of West Bengal. The Second Appellate Authority has also dismissed the Second Appeal by a reasoned order dated 5^th of August, 2024.

2. Being aggrieved by the act and action of the concerned authority the petitioner approached this Court.

3. Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issuance of notice of personal hearing by the concerned Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) is bad in law as per provisions of Clause 24 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2013. He submits that before initiation of any proceeding, notice of show cause has to be served upon the petitioner as per provisions of Clause 24 of the said Control Order. He submits that in this case, no show cause notice was issued against the present petitioner. Only notice of personal hearing was served. He further argued that from the notice of personal hearing as well as the order itself it would be revealed that the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) concerned has acted upon the instruction of higher authority pre-determining the fact that he had to terminate the licence of the petitioner

4. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel further submits that the order of the concerned Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) as well as the orders passed by the 1^st Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority are all bad in law.

5. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned senior counsel cited three decision of Hon’ble Apex Court.

(1) Nawabkhan Abbaskhan Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1974) 2 SCC 121 .

(2) Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots’ Association of India (Aplai) & Ors. Vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors. Reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435 and

(3) Oryx Fisheries private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427

6. Mr. Bandopadhyay, further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically guided that the statutory authority has to act according to the procedure enumerated in the statute itself. The act and action of the authority beyond statutory is not permissible.

7. Ms. Sonal Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent raised strong objection. She submits that the authority has used Affidavit-in-Opposition