Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. K. Nair, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sinha, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. S. R. Baruah, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. The writ petition No.2727/2018 is filed by the petitioner challenging the order issued under Memo No. BSM65/2018/32-33 dated 19.04.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Civil), Bilasipara, Dhubri, the respondent No.4 thereby suspending the retail trade license of the petitioner. The other writ petition No.4473/2018 is also filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and correctness of the show cause notice issued vide No.BSM85/2018/227 dated 05.07.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Bilasipara, Dhubri, the respondent No.4 as to why distributorship should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the said show cause notice.

3. The petitioner is operating the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship under M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), respondent No.5 for the last 32 years in the name and style M/S Nishi Gas Agency at Bilasipara in Dhubri District without any complaint from any quarter. The LPG distributorship was cancelled on 01.10.2016 by the SDO (Civil), Bilasipara. The matter was challenged before the appellate authority, accordingly the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri on 30.06.2017 ordered for restoration of the trade license to the petitioner. However, the same was not complied on the ground that a second appeal was preferred by the SDO (Civil), Bilasipara. WP(C) No.5079/2017 was preferred and vide an interim order dated 27.10.2017 direction was issued for restoration of the license of the petitioner in terms of the order of the appellate authority dated 30.06.2017. That was not followed consequent to which Contempt Case (Civil) 546/2017 was preferred by the petitioner and notice was issued to the SDO (Civil), Bilasipara vide order dated 15.11.2017 of this Court. In compliance of the said order the license was restored vide order dated 22.11.2017 by the then SDO (Civil), Bilasipara.

4. The respondent No.4 vide order No.BSM85/2018/32-33 dated 19.04.2018 on certain allegations on the basis of sudden inspection in the office and godown of the petitioner's gas agency suspended the retail sale license bearing No.375 on the basis of the conclusion drawn which is reproduced herein below:

"Thereby the Distributor has violated Clause 9 (e) and Schedule I, Prohibited Activities No.10 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 and Clause 16 and 25 of the Assam Trade Articles (L & C) Order 1982 R/W Terms and Conditions No.5(ii) of the license issued to M/S Nishi Gas Agency, Bilasipara under the ATA (L & C) Order1982 R/W Chapter 2.2.10 of the LPG Marketing Discipline Guideline 2015."

5. The said order of suspension is challenged in WP(C) No.2727/2018. After the said suspension order, vide show cause notice No.BSM85/2018/277 dated 05.07.2018, the respondent No.4 issued the same as to why the retail sale license bearing No.375 shall not be cancelled for violation of the provision of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order 2000 (hereinafter referred to as LPG Order 2000) read with clauses of the Assam Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order 1982 {hereinafter referred to as ATA (L & C) Order 1982} and LPG Marketing Discipline Guideline 2015. WP(C)4473/2018 was filed challenging the said show cause notice dated 05.07.2018. Vide order dated 13.07.2018 this Court stayed the impugned notice dated 05.07.2018 until further order.

6. Mr. B. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions submits that after enactment of the LPG Order 2000 read with Revised Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2015 of