SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 514

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Joy Kumar Hazam, S/o Late Shibnarayan Hazam - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam to be represented by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Foods & Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department – Respondent
W.P.[C]. No. 4346 of 2024
Decided On : 17-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. L.R. Mazumder, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. U. Das, Additional Senior Government Advocate

Licensing Authority must provide specific reasons in cancellation orders; non-speaking orders violate principles of natural justice and are unsustainable in law.

Headnote:(A) Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 - Clause 15 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Cancellation of Fair Price Shop licenses - The Licensing Authority failed to provide specific reasons for cancellation, resulting in a non-speaking order which is not sustainable in law, violating principles of natural justice and fair play. (Paras 18, 21, 22)

(B) Natural Justice - Recording of reasons is essential in administrative orders affecting rights to ensure fairness and transparency and an opportunity for the aggrieved party to challenge the decision. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought judicial review of the cancellation of their Fair Price Shop licenses due to alleged violations following inspections which reported deficiencies, despite having given explanations.

Findings of Court:
The orders of cancellation and affirmation by Appellate Authority were quashed as non-speaking, restoring the matter for consideration of the show cause replies by the Licensing Authority.

Issues: Whether the cancellations were justified without proper reasons and adherence to natural justice principles.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held the absence of reasons in the Licensing Authority's decision made it non-sustainable and contrary to established legal standards of administrative justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed; orders quashed and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. cancellation of fair price shop licenses (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. process of handling show cause replies (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. arguments regarding cancellation validity (Para 10 , 12 , 13)
4. legal basis for license cancellation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. need for recording reasons in administrative orders (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. implications of non-speaking orders (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
7. conclusion of writ petition (Para 24)

JUDGMENT :

1. The two petitioners have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail a common Order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4, that is, the Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil], Lakhipur, Cachar whereby the Fair Price Shop [FPS] licenses issued to the petitioners under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles [APDA] Order, 1982 have been cancelled with immediate effect.

2. The two petitioners were holders of Fair Price Shops [FPS] licenses and they both were retailers under M/s Jiri-Fulertal Gaon Panchayat Samabay Samittee [GPSS]. On the basis of a public complaint regarding non-distribution of NFSA rice an inspection was carried out in the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner no. 1 on 08.06.2023 and a few rice bags were seized. A similar inspection was also carried out in the Fair Price Shop [FPS] of the petitioner no. 2 on 08.06.2023 and a few rice bags were seized. By executing zimmanamas of even date, the seized rice bags were again given in the custody of the petitioners by the respondent no. 6 on undertakings from the petitioners that they would not dispose of the seized rice without an order of the Area Officer and would keep the seized rice in good condition. Subsequently on 12.06.2023, the respondent no. 6 vide an Office Order of even date, allowed the petitioners to distribute the seized NFSA rice to the beneficiaries with immediate effect in the interest of the general consumers.

3. On 15.06.2023, the respondent no. 5 passed two Orders whereby the FPS licenses of the two petitioners were suspended with immediate effect and their consumers were tagged with the respective nearest Fair Price Shop.

4. In respect of the petitioner no. 1, the Order of Suspension dated 15.06.2023 had inter alia mentioned that it was reported that the petitioner no. 1, a retailer under M/s Jiri-Fulertal GPSS, did not distribute NFSA rice in the month of June, 2023 to the consumers till 08.06.2023 though he received the rice on 03.05.2023. It was mentioned that the petitioner no. 1 intended to divert the allotted rice for personal gain and he did not maintain stock register of allotted articles. The petitioner no. 1 had failed to hang the beneficiary list in his Fair Price Shop [FPS] and he also failed to submit the monthly performance reports. It was mentioned that the petitioner no. 1 had thereby, contravened the provisions of Clause 6[4] of the PDS [Control] Order, 2001; Clauses 18, 20 & 21 of the APDA Order, 1982; and violated the Clauses 3[a], 4, 5 & 8[1] of the terms and conditions of the FPS license under the APDA Order, 1982. While suspending the FPS license of petitioner no. 1 by Order dated 15.06.2023, he was also asked to show cause as to why his FPS license should not be cancelled for violation of the afore-stated clauses of the FPS License and the provisions of the APDA Order, 1982. The petitioner no. 1 was directed to file his show cause reply within a period of ten days therefrom.

5. By the Order of Suspension dated 15.06.2023, the petitioner no. 2 was informed that it was reported that he, a FPS retailer under M/s Jiri-Fulertal GPSS, received the NFSA rice for the month of June, 2023 on 05.06.2023. While other FPS licenses lifted the same in the first week of May, 2023, the petitioner no. 2 collected the rice from other sources on 07.06.2023. It was mentioned that the petitioner no. 2 intended to divert the allotted rice for personal gain. He also did not display stock and price board in his Fair Price Shop [

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top