The central legal point established is that the suspension of a license must adhere to the principles of natural justice and the relevant statutory provisions, and the authority to suspend licenses under a specific Act cannot be exercised for licenses issued under a different provision.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, State of Assam and Mr. R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. The petitioner is a licensee under Rule 82 and 83 of the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 for possession of Rectified spirit. Such license was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13/12/2011 by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam vide Order No. III.115/2003-04/301. Subsequently, by another order dated 15/12/2011, the Commissioner of Excise, Assam also issued a license in favour of the petitioner to manufacture medicinal and toilet preparation.

3. Thereafter on 21/6/2017, the Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia i.e. respondent No. 3 had issued the order purportedly in exercise of power conferred upon him under Sec. 30(1)(c) of Assam Excise Act, 2000, suspending the license of the petitioner with immediate effect. By the said order, the petitioner was directed to show cause within 30 (thirty) days as to why the license of the petitioner should not finally be cancelled from the date of receipt of his order.

4. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the said order of the Collection cum Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that rule 87 of the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties), Rules, 1956 provides the power and procedure for revocation and suspension of licences. Such power is vested with the licensing authorities and therefore, Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel contends that the Collector cum Deputy Commissioner is not being licensing authority and the Commissioner of Excise, Assam is the licensing authority, the impugned order has been issued without any sanction and authority under law.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Annexure-F (license) issued in favour of the petitioner by the Commissioner of Excise, Assam and Annexure-G, to show that the said Commissioner of Excise, Assam has issued such license as licensing authority. The further contention of Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel is that even if assuming that the Collector cum Deputy Commissioner was delegated the power of licensing authority then also rule 87 of the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties), Rules, 1956 mandates that before suspension, a reasonable opportunity of showing cause is required to be given to the licensee. He submits that in absence of any show cause, the order impugned is in derogation of rule 87 of the Medicinal and Toilet preparations (Excise Duties), Rules, 1956. Accordingly he submits that such order needs to be struck down.

6. Per contra, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department, Assam submits that the decision to suspend the license was taken by the Commissioner of Excise i.e. the licensing authority and same was communicated to the Collector cum Deputy Commissioner vide W.T. Message dated 13/6/2017 and thereafter the Collector cum Deputy Commissioner had only issued the suspension order. Such issuance is a mere formality and the decision has been taken by the licensing authority itself.

7. Countering the second limb of argument of Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the Excise Department submits that the provision of rule 87 and the suspension thereof is having two fold dimensions: (i) when a suspension is made temporarily pending drawl of proceeding, no notice is required to be issued to the licensee. However, when the licensing authority had already taken a decision to finally revoke and suspend of such license then only the provision of notice shall arise. He further submits that in the case in hand, suspension was temporary inasmuch as an opportunity to show cause was given to him and therefore, there was no violation of any provision of Rule, 1956.

8. For a bare reading o