The administrative authority must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot penalize without following due process; however, the burden of proof remains on the licensee to show compliance with regulations regarding public distribution.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. Petitioner has been running a fair price shop dealership by the strength of license issued by the concerned Sub- Divisional Controller, Food and Supply, under the Provisions of West Bengal Public Distribution System, (Maintenance & Control Order), 2013. His shop-cum godown was inspected on 25.06.2024. Next day one show cause notice was served upon him on 26th June 2024. He replied said show cause notice on 4th July, 2024, he was given a personal hearing on 12th July, 2024 after the said personal hearing vide an order dated 30th July, 2024, Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supply imposed a penalty of Rs.7,85,61,044/- in exercise of power conferred u/s 24A (2) of West Bengal, WBPDS, M&C Order 13. Petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount within 07 days from the date of the receipt of the order. Petitioner was aggrieved and preferred an appeal before the appellate authority after receiving the appeal the concerned Appellate Authority being District Collector, Food and Supply, had issued for personal hearing notice, the personal hearing was held on 11th September, 2024. After hearing, the appellate authority has passed an order on 17th September, 2024, thereby affirmed the order of imposition of punishment by the concerned SCF&S and directed the petitioner to deposit penalty amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. On the next day i.e. on 18th September, 2024, Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supply, Malda Sadar, has issued the order of suspension.

2. Challenging the order passed by the Concerned Authority, as well as procedure adopted by the authority concern. The instant writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the Concerned authorities are mala fide and illegal. Prior to issuance of show cause the authority concerned also issued one show cause upon the petitioner on 12th February, 2024 on the basis of selfsame allegations, on the basis of such show cause notice the petitioner filed a reply and one hearing was conducted on 17th March, 2024 thereafter, the respondent authority did not pass any order but they again issue impugned show cause notice.

4. He submits that authority once initiated a proceeding by issuing show cause, they must have completed the proceeding by passing an order. In this case without passing reasonable order, the concern authority has again started similar proceeding by issuance of show case on similar allegations.

5. Mr. Saha Ray, further argued that the ground for show cause clearly identical. He further submits that during the course of inspection the inspectors has found 4.37610 quintals of rice grain found short in the FPS godown of the petitioner but it would be revealed from the inspection report itself, that measurement was taken by only eye estimation. He further submits that according to the provisions of law the measurement has to be made particularly by weighment scale. He submits that petitioner has arranged labour and weighment scale for proper measurement but the inspectors only taken the measurement through eye estimation. He further submits that it has alleged in the show cause that about 269 presently deactivate cards were tagged with the FPS of the petitioner, during the inspection by the Concerned Authority, it appeared that concern family members could not rec