The exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to review the merits of a decision but to ensure jurisdictional correctness and procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

Heard Shri B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri S.R. Baruah, learned State Counsel for the respondents.

2. The challenge in this petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is with regard to an order dated 02.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Director (I/C), Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs whereby the PDS License of the petitioners have been cancelled.

3. As per the facts projected, the petitioners were issued a Fair Price Shop license and were running the same in accordance with law. However, certain allegations were levelled against them and an enquiry was done on those allegations leading to an order of suspension of license dated 11.06.2018. The same was followed by a Show Cause Notice dated 19.06.2018. Subsequently, on 05.08.2018, an additional Show Cause Notice was issued by the Additional Deputy Director (I/C). The petitioners had responded to the same on 08.11.2018 and after completion of the proceeding, the impugned order dated 02.09.2022 has been passed which is the subject matter of challenge.

4. Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not given any opportunity at the stage of such enquiry. He has further submitted that from the materials on record, it appears that the ADC (I/C) had a role in the proceeding which is in conflict with the law and unfair inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner is the Appellate Authority under Order 30 of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. He has also submitted that the allegations are not correct and the petitioners were deprived of a fair opportunity to defend themselves.

5. Per contra, Shri Baruah, the learned State Counsel has submitted that all procedural safe guards were afforded to the petitioners to defend themselves in the proceeding. By refuting the submission regarding any prejudice caused to the petitioners, the learned State Counsel has submitted that under Order 29, it is the Deputy Commissioner, who would be the Appellate Authority if the order is made by any Officer, who is lower in rank and the present order being passed by the Deputy Director, there would be no prejudice caused to the petitioners for preferring an appeal. He has also highlighted that the additional Show Cause Notice was not issued by the Deputy Commissioner but by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner only to clarify certain factual aspects and full opportunity was granted to the petitioners to file their response to the same. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to an earlier Writ Petition being WP(C)/1431/2019 instituted by the petitioners challenging the suspension order dated 11.06.2018 in which this Court had passed an order dated 15.03.2019 directing conclusion of the proceeding. The State Counsel has highlighted the aspect that certified copy of the said order was supplied to the authorities only on 10.08.2022 whereafter the impugned action could be taken. He, accordingly, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. The rival contentions advanced have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused.

7. The Show Cause Notice issued on 19.06.2018 was preceded by an order of suspension which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/1431/2019. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition had directed for conclusion of the proceeding within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The certified copy however appears to have been served on the authorities only on 10.08.2022 whereafter the impugned order has been passed. This Court has also noticed that t