Licensing authorities must maintain regulatory compliance; license cancellation justified based on proven negligence without breaching natural justice principles.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm. The petitioner was holding a license for dealing in cooking gas under Tripura Cooking Gas [Licensing, Control and Maintenances of Supplies] Order 1985. According to the petitioner, on 04.06.2020, the petitioner was served a showcause [Annexure-3 to the writ petition] whereby the petitioner was asked to showcause as to why lawful action shall not be taken against her [the sole proprietor] for violation of provisions of the Tripura Cooking Gas [Licensing, Control and Maintenances of Supplies] Order 1985 and liquefied Petroleum Gas [Regulation of Supply and Distribution] Order 2000 including suspension/cancellation of the license.

2. For issuing the showcause notice, the licensing authority who issued the said showcause dated 04.06.2020 has laid down the background facts, which are in brief as follows:

1) The petitioner failed to maintain adequate stock of cooking gas at the business place for sale to the bonafide customer(s) whose names are registered with the agency for getting supply of cooking gas and to make home delivery of LPG cylinders at the address of registered customers.

2) During the visit of the Chief Minister in different villages of Sepahijala District on 29.05.2020, it was reported by the people of various villages in Kathalia, Nalchar and Mohanpur Blocks that Neermal Gas Agency, Sonamura [the petitioner herein] was not giving required number of gas cylinders to the public and they were made to visit again and again to the agency and had to wait for a long time in queue as the agency was not making home delivery of cylinders.

3) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura got the complaint inquired through one Hamenda Bikash Paul, Deputy Collector & Magistrate, Sonamura. It has been observed in the inquiry report, inter alia, thus:

a) The agency did not supply LPG cylinder as per requirement of the customers.

b) The local people have complained that the said agency [the petitioner] has been harassing the customers when they go for taking delivery of LPG cylinders. The said officer found such allegations to be correct. To mitigate the situation, the petitioner was instructed on several occasions to be consumer friendly but the petitioner did not give any heed to such instructions at all.

c) The agency [the petitioner] has not been delivering LPG cylinders to the consumers by home delivery mode.

As the licensing authority found the acts of the petitioner in gross violation of the provisions of those orders, as quoted above, the petitioner was asked to give the reply by 12.06.2020, meaning within ten days.

3. The petitioner denied all the three major allegations by filing a reply to the said showcause notice dated 04.06.2020.The petitioner has asserted in the said reply that he has been running the business of cooking gas with due integrity, diligence and sincerity and without any blemish whatsoever. The petitioner had been maintaining adequate number of LPG cylinders for supply as per the requirement without causing any inconvenience to the registered customers. The petitioner has, however, partly admitted that for a short period there had been some difficulties in supplying the cylinders to the customers as per their requirement.

4. The petitioner has further asserted that she was dealing in the cooking gas following a consumer friendly policy but she has apprehended that “in order to quench their thirst of revenge they might have falsely reported against me.”

5. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has further stated