IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the 90-day period for suspension of a license pending inquiry, as per Clause 8(2) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Controlling and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981, is mandatory, while the completion of the inquiry within the 90-day period is directory, not mandatory.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Bhavin Thakar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondent No. 1.

2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, the learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of rule for respondent No. 1.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was running a shop of grocery shop namely (Santram Grahak Bhandar Mandali Ltd.) under the department of respondent authority at Mukam District : Kheda and the shop was closed for five to six days. In view therefore, respondent No. 3 passed an order in Purvatha/Tapas/ Mokuf/Hukam/250-253/2020 dated 4.2.2020 suspending the licence No. N/SH/CHU/11/04, which was issued in favour of the petitioner.

3.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 passed the said order under Section 9(2) of the Gujarat Essential Commodities Order, 2004 and Clause 8(2) of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Controlling and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981.

4. Being aggrieved by the order suspending the licence by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner approached the appellate authority by preferring appeal being Appeal No. 04 of 2023/VASHI/61/24. It is further stated that the appellate authority, by impugned order dated 24.1.2024, while confirming the order passed by the respondent No. 3, cancelled petitioner’s licence No. N/SH/CHU/11/04, a copy of the said order dated 24.1.2024 is duly produced at Annexure “A.”

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs:

“9. The petitioners, therefore, prays as under:

(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by quashing and setting aside both orders of respondent No. 1 vide dated 24-01-2024 in Appeal No. 04 of 2023/VASHI/61/24 (ANNEXURE-A) AND further be please to quashing and setting aside order dated 04-02-2020 pass by the respondent No. 3 in Purvatha/Tapas/Mokuf/Hukam/250-253/2020 (ANNEX-B).

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution order of respondent No. 1 vide dated 24-01-2024 in Appeal No. 04 of 2023/VASHI/61/24 (ANNEXURE-A) AND order passed by the respondent No. 3 in Purvatha/Tapas/Mokuf/Hukam/ 250-253/2020 vide dated 04-02-2020 (ANNEX-B).

(C) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ by directing the respondents to revived the suspension of license being licence No. N/SH/CHU/11/04 of petitioner forthwith.

(D) Any other that are necessary in the interest of justice be passed.”

6. Mr. Thakar, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the impugned action undertaken by the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order dated 24.1.2024, is against the settled position of law and Clause-8 of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Controlling and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981.

6.1. Reliance was placed on 9(2) of Gujarat Essential Commodities Order, 2004 and sub-clause (2) of Clause-8 wherein if the licencing authority is prima-facie satisfied that there is a case for cancellation of a the licence, it may suspend the licence for a period not exceeding 90 days during which period the authority shall consider and finally decide.

6.2. Mr. Thakar, the learned advocate submitted that on expiry of 90 days, the order of suspension would come to an end, however, the appellate authority, while passing the impugned order challenging the suspension proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s licence. It is submitted that even otherwise, the 90 days period is over, the petitioner be directed to placed in the same position, prior to the passing of the impugned orders.

7. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, the learned AGP was not in a position to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Thakar, the learned adv