Administrative action must ensure compliance with principles of natural justice, granting all parties the right to defend against allegations made.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Bokolial, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and Ms. B. Bhuiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the order dated 16.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) whereby the respondent No. 5 had cancelled the retail PDS License bearing No. GSM-8/2015/32 issued to the petitioner for the reasons categorically stated in the said order.

3. Mr. M.U. Mahmud, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is being assailed on the ground that the very proceedings, i.e., right from the issuance of the show cause notice to the passing of the impugned order were behind the back of the petitioner. In that regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the show cause notice was based upon certain purported complaints and a report, but neither the purported complaints nor the report was furnished to the petitioner, for which, the petitioner was not in a proper position to defend his case by submitting a reply. He therefore submitted that the impugned order is required to be interfered with.

4. Per contra, Ms. B. Bhuiyan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submitted that the petitioner had indulged in activities which were not only prejudicial to the department, but also to the beneficiaries inasmuch as there were complaints wherein the petitioner was alleged to demand money from the beneficiaries and upon due enquiry, the said complaints were found to be true and as such, the question of interference with the impugned order does not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner in his reply did not seek for the complaints or the report and as such, without the prejudice being shown by the petitioner, the question of raising the issue of violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise.

5. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

6. This Court would not like to go into the allegations and counter- allegations made in the instant proceedings, as to whether, the petitioner had defrauded the beneficiaries or the veracity of the report on the basis of which the impugned order was passed.

7. Be that as it may, it is seen that there were certain complaints and the said complaint were verified on the basis of a report. If those are the materials on which the respondents wanted to rely upon, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to defend the allegations made against him as well as the report which was the basis of the show cause notice.

8. This Court has also taken note of the impugned order wherein it is also seen that on the basis of the report being submitted, the impugned order was passed. Under such circumstances, it apparently appears that the rights of the petitioner to be provided a reasonable opportunity have been violated.

9. It is, however, seen from a perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 5, wherein the complaints as well as the report have been duly enclosed. Taking into account that now the petitioner has the complaints as well as the report on the basis of which the show cause notice as well as the impugned order were issued, the petitioner can now be permitted to submit a fresh reply and appropriate directions can be passed upon the concerned Respondent Authorities to consider the said reply and thereupon take a decision as deemed fit, in accordance with law.

10. It is also the opinion of this Court that taking into account the seriousness of the allegations, it would not be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to run his Fair Price Shop till an adjudication is made.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and