The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing penalties, particularly in the context of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. The court emphasized that the penalty imposed should be proportionate to the nature of the allegations and that the legal framework only prescribed suspension or cancellation as penalties, leading to the substitution of the cancellation with a suspension.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel appearing for all the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has a chequered history which includes previous litigations also.

3. The petitioner no. 1 is a Samabai Samity which was granted a Fair Price License being License No.HS.PDS/H/W/5 under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles, Order, 1982 . In connection with an incident in delay in distribution of NFSA rice to 21 numbers of Fair Price Shop Agents and some seizure made, Algapur PS Case No. 356/2021 under Sections 240/468 IPC read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was registered. Apprehending arrest in the said case, the petitioner no. 2, who is the Secretary of the petitioner no. 1, Samity had approached this Court by filing AB No.4311/2021 and this Court vide order dated 07.02.2022 had granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 2. It is also averred that in the said police case, Final Report (FR) was submitted.

4. In connection with the aforesaid incident, the Department had issued an order dated 14.12.2021 suspending the license of the petitioner no. 1, Society and the consumers were attached to a nearby Society. It was alleged that there were violations of Clause-4, 7 & 8 (1) of the license.

5. The aforesaid order of suspension was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C) No. 7224/2021 filed before this Court. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, an order was passed on 10.03.2021 whereby the license of the petitioner no. 1 was cancelled. The aforesaid order of cancellation was the subject matter of the second writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2332/2022.

6. This Court had disposed of the said two writ petitions vide order dated 09.03.2023 by directing reconsideration of the appeal by the appellate authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, Hailakandi. This Court had however noticed that the allegation was in connection with not making timely delivery of the PDS articles and wherein the delivery which was to be made within 31st November, 2021 was not found to be complete. The appellate authority on such remand had passed an order dated 12.05.2023 rejecting the same and the orders of suspension as well as cancellation were upheld.

7. Shri Roychoudhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order of cancellation is absolutely harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the nature of allegations leveled. It is specifically contended on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation is not of any mis-appropriation or defalcation of funds or misuse but only relates to a slight delay in distributing the PDS articles. He submits that for such allegation, the order of cancellation of the license as a whole is not at all reasonable as it would amount to adversely affecting the means of livelihood of the petitioners and the members concerned with the petitioner no. 1, Samity. He submits that the commission received from such license is one of the main source of income and there was never any intention on the part of the petitioners to cause delay in distributing the items.

8. Coming to the explanations projected by the petitioners, it is submitted that there were bona fide reasons for which the delay has been caused and such reasons includes illness of two workers of the petitioner no. 1, Society who were engaged in loading and unloading of articles and also the reason that the daughter of the petitioner no. 2 was seriously ill for which she was required to be shifted to Guwahati for advanced/better treatment. He submits that the appellate authority on both the occasions has failed to apply his judicious mind to the causes shown and have rather taken a hyper technical approach by coming to a conclusion that the stand taken by the petitioners was not consistent.

9. By drawing the attention of this Court to the replies dated 24.12.2021 and 12.05.2023, it is submitted that there is no inconsistencies in