Suspension of P.D.S. license without due process and opportunity to respond violates principles of natural justice, necessitating annulment and proper reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA, J.

This writ petition has been preferred by the Petitioner, who is a P.D.S. Retailer, challenging the order of suspension dated 22.02.2023 passed by the Sub- Collector & Licensing Authority, Sadar, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.3) so also the Order dated 19.06.2024 passed in P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023, vide which the Collector, Cuttack (Opposite Party No.2), being the Appellate Authority, refused to revoke the order of Suspension dated 22.02.2023.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as stated in the Writ Petition, is that the Petitioner is functioning as PDS Retailer at Batapur under Nandol Gram Panchayat in Salipur, Block, Cuttack for about last 30 years without any complaint. The PDS license of the Petitioner was valid till 31.03.2023. However, on 28.12.2022, the Petitioner received a show cause notice from Opposite Party No.3 alleging some minor irregularities against the Petitioner, asking him to file reply within seven days. On 30.12.2022, the Petitioner filed an application before the Opposite Party No.3 seeking for time to file reply along with a medical certificate. Thereafter, though the Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.3 to supply him the documents relating to allegations levelled against him, no document was supplied to the Petitioner to file his show cause. Further, on 22.02.2023 (wrongly typed as 02.02.2023) the order of suspension was passed against the Petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to him. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal challenging the said order dated 22.02.2023 before the Opposite Party No.2 in P.D.S (Appeal) No.11 of 2023. The said order was also upheld by the Opposite Party No.2 vide order dated 19.06.2024. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. This writ petition has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the Opposite Party No.3 passed the order of suspension relying on some documents, which were not supplied to the Petitioner so also without disclosing about the report submitted by the Marketing Inspector, Salipur as well as the report of the Block Development Officer, Salipur regarding allegations of irregularities committed by the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after passing of the suspension order, an application was filed by the consumers of the Petitioner unanimously before the Opposite Party No.3 on 13.02.2023 stating about the innocence of the Petitioner so also the allegations levelled against him to be baseless.

4. It is further case of the Petitioner that, the allegations levelled against him, are made on political consideration to oust him from PDS channel. Further, neither any document was supplied to the Petitioner along with show cause notice nor on demand made by the Petitioner to rebut the allegations. Moreover, the Order of suspension was passed by the Opposite Party No.3 without following due procedure so also without giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

5. Further, the Opposite Party No.2 also passed the impugned order dated 19.06.2014 relying on the unsupplied documents so also without assigning any reason regarding such non-supply of documents to the Petitioner and also without dealing with the point regarding providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner before passing the Order of suspension. The Petitioner was kept in dark about the real allegations levelled against him. Therefore, the impugned order dated19.06.2024 being illegal, is liable to be