ORDER

18.02.2022 Date :

Heard Ms. S.P. Baksh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.

Deuri, learned Govt. advocate appearing for respondent no.1, 2 and 5, Ms. R.B. Bora, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 and Mr. N.

Haque, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was Sub-whole seller of PDS items in respect of Borsola Part under No.40 Rowta Territorial Constituency under BTAD. At the relevant time the petitioner has possessed a valid PDS licence under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 for lifting PDS items including rice and sugar as Sub-whole seller. It is projected that the petitioner is in business since 2010. In the meanwhile, the respondent no. 6 had issued PDS licence in favour of respondent no. 7 by an order dated 20.03.2015 (Annexure- D), the PDS items were allotted to the respondent no. 7 for lifting and distributing the PDS items amongst the 18 GPSS agents. It is projected that the said action was taken arbitrarily and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

3. The learned standing counsel for the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 has referred to the affidavit in opposition filed by the said respondents and she has justified the issuance of PDS items to the respondent no.7 as well as the impugned allotment order dated 20.03.2015. It is submitted that a PDS licence was issued to the respondent no.7 on the basis of an order no. CHD/FCS & CA- 4/2013/79 dated 02.02.2015 received from the Council Head of the Department for Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Kokrajhar. Accordingly, it is submitted that all the 18 distributing agents are now receiving articles from the respondent no. 7. It is also submitted that at the relevant time, the PDS licence of the petitioner was valid, but by passage of time, the validity of the licence had lapsed. It is further submitted that the licence now has been distributed to the various ration card holders without any grievances from their side.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.7 has also justified the issuance of PDS licence to the respondent no.7 and the consequential allotment order dated 20.03.2015. It is submitted that various allotment orders have been issued thereafter from time to time and it is further submitted that there were grievances of the various PDS agents against the petitioner for which such action was taken. It is also submitted that while the petitioner is an individual, the respondent no. 7 is a cooperative society.

5. From the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6, it is seen that the said respondents have not offered any comments insofar as the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition is concerned where it is alleged that prior to discontinuing allotment of PDS articles to the petitioner, he was neither served any notice nor he was given any opportunity for personal hearing before replacing him with the respondent no.7. In fact in response to paragraph 9 of the statement made in the writ petition, in the affidavit-in- opposition filed by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6, it is merely been mentioned that the answering deponent offers no comment. By applying doctrine of non-

traverse, the statement made in the paragraph 9 of the writ petition, is deem to have been admitted by the BTC authorities to the effect that before discontinuing allotment of PDS articles to the petitioner, he was not given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the action of the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 6 to discontinue allotment of PDS articles to the petitioner is held to be not sustainable.

6. It appears to the Court that for the purpose of providing PDS articles to whole seller/ sub-whole seller, allotment orders are issued from time to time. Therefore, no purpose would be served for cancelling the allotment order dated 20.03.2015 impugned in the present writ petition, as it has lost its force. Therefore, the Court is inclined to mould reliefs