The importance of providing an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and considering the serious nature of the allegations and the interest of the public in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri MH Rabjarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri G. Bokalial, learned State Counsel. Shri L.R. Mazumder, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 6.

2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioners against an order dated 07.09.2012 by which the PDS license in the name of the petitioner no. 1 – Society has been cancelled. The petitioners are also aggrieved by an order dated 04.05.2013 by which the appeal preferred by them has been dismissed.

3. Before going to the issue and the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioners, the facts of the case may be narrated in brief.

4. There are two petitioners in this writ petition. While the petitioner no. 1 is a Cooperative Society of the district of Cachar and is represented by the Chairman, the petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the Society. As per the facts projected, after coming into the Office in the year 2011, the Chairman of the Society had taken steps for removal of anomalies and corruption which according to the petitioners were going on in the functioning of the Society, more particularly in the subject of distribution of PDS commodities. It is apprehended that such steps / action was not to the liking of certain agents including the respondent no. 6, who accordingly had conspired and lodged a false complaint. Allegation of conspiracy has also been made involving the respondent no. 7, who was the In-charge Secretary of the Society. It is submitted that apart from lodging of a criminal complaint, an order of suspension was also issued on 11.06.2012 which was based upon an Enquiry Report. Subsequently, vide the impugned order dated 07.09.2012, the PDS license of the petitioner no. 1 was cancelled. As indicated above, the petitioners were unsuccessful in the appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority, who had rejected the appeal vide an order dated 04.05.2023.

5. Shri Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged the following grounds in support of the present challenge-

i. The impugned action is based upon an enquiry, the Report of which has not been furnished to the petitioners.

ii. The petitioner Society was represented by the Chairman, who at the relevant point of time was out of station in connection with his medical treatment and therefore he was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to defend his case.

iii. The seizure list would reveal that one of the witnesses was an Officer of the Food and Civil Supplies Department, who had passed the impugned order.

iv. The impugned action is vitiated by bias and mala fide and therefore the same is liable to be interfered with.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions-

i. State of W.B. and Ors. Vs. Shivananda Pathak and Ors. [(1998) 5 SCC 513];

ii. G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University & Ors. [(2002) 2 SCC 712] and

iii. Sukheto Chishi Vs. State of Nagaland and Ors. [2002 (2) GLT 216].

7. In the case of Shivananda Pathak (supra), the concept of bias has been explained. In paragraphs 25 and 26, it has been stated as follows:

“25. Bias may be defined as a preconceived opinion or a predisposition or predetermination to decide a case or an issue in a particular manner, so much so that such predisposition does not leave the mind open to conviction. It is, in fact, a condition of mind, which sways judgments and renders the judge unable to exercise impartiality in a particular case.

26. Bias has many forms. It may be pecuniary bias, personal bias, bias as to subject-matter in dispute, or policy bias etc. In the instant case, we are not concerned with any of these forms of bias. We have to deal, as we shall presently see, a new form of bias, namely, bias on account of judicial obstinacy.”

8. In the case of G.N. Nayak (supra), it has been clarified that not every act of bias would vitiate the action which is the subject matter of challenge. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph is extracte