The court emphasized that a continuation of suspension beyond stipulated periods violates procedural norms, necessitating personal hearings in license cancellation procedures.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8. I have also heard Mr. R. B. Goswami, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

2. The Petitioner No.1 herein which is the Cooperative Society is aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.2023 by which the Petitioner No.1’s license was suspended in terms with Clause 15(1) of the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (for short ‘the Order of 1982’) and the subsequent cancellation dated 02.08.2025.

3. It was informed at the Bar that though the cancellation order was passed on 02.08.2025, but subsequently, the District Commissioner, Barpeta has withdrawn the said order on 19.11.2025 inasmuch as the cancellation order was passed on 02.08.2025 without notice of the interim order passed by this Court on 27.01.2025 in WP(C) No.5772/2024.

4. Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that as there is no cancellation order, the continuation of the suspension beyond a period of 90 days is contrary to Clause 15(2) of the Order of 1982.

5. On the other hand, Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 submitted that the Petitioner No.1 was issued a Show Cause Notice on 27.11.2024 and a reply was submitted on 04.12.2024. Thereupon, a hearing was conducted by the Executive Magistrate, Barpeta and the defence so set up by the Petitioner No.1 was not found satisfactory and as such the Executive Magistrate proposed cancellation of the sub-wholesale license of the Petitioners. Accordingly, the sub-wholesale license issued to the Petitioners was cancelled vide an order dated 02.08.2025 without noticing that there was an interim order not to take coercive action against the Petitioners. He therefore submitted that taking into account that the Petitioner No.1 has already been issued a show Cause Notice and the Petitioner has filed the reply, the Respondent Authorities may be permitted to proceed with the adjudication.

6. Replying to the same, Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners should be given an opportunity of personal hearing taking into account that the Petitioners had submitted the Show Cause Reply along with certain documents which the Petitioners would like to explain before the authority adjudicating as to whether the Petitioners’ license is required to be cancelled or not. He further submitted that the hearing should be conducted by the District Commissioner, Barpeta or the Co-District Commissioner, Barpeta but not Executive Magistrate, Barpeta taking into account that the said official had already framed up his mind. He further submitted that the continuation of the suspension cannot also be permitted in view of Clause 15(2) of the Order of 1982.

7. Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties, it is the opinion of this Court that the instant writ petition can be disposed of at this stage thereby directing the Respondent Authorities more particularly the District Commissioner or his delegatee who shall not be an Officer below the rank of Co-District Commissioner to decide as to whether the Petitioners’ license is required to be cancelled or not.

8. It is also very pertinent to observe that it is a settled proposition of law that a continuation of suspension beyond 90 days is not in accordance with Clause 15(2) of the Order of 1982. It is also relevant to take note of that in view of the