The court stressed the necessity of transparent and fair processes for licensing Fair Price Shops, affirming that government actions must comply with constitutional principles of equality.

1. Petitioner was granted dealership on commission basis to deal with the transactions regarding sale and storage of food grains and sugar under Public Distribution System to the consumers of Logripora area. This was done by respondent no.2 vide Order no.444 - DCA&PD of 2003 dated 3rd November 2003. It is claimed that petitioner performed the job of dealership to the best satisfaction of respondent Department and beneficiary consumers, but respondent no.2, without any reason or provocation, transferred Fair Price Shop Dealership Licence of petitioner in favour of respondent no.7, vide Order no.164 - DCAPDK of 2014 dated 5th March 2014. This was challenged by petitioner in OWP no.49/2014, which was disposed of by this Court on 26th November 2014 and order of transfer of licence in favour of respondent no.7, was quashed, and respondent no.2 was directed to reconsider the matter for continuation of licence in favour of petitioner or for grant of the same in favour of respondent no.7, in light of representation filed by both parties and pass fresh orders within a period of one months. In the order, it was also provided that till such decision was taken by respondent no.2, Fair Price Shop in question would be run departmentally. In compliance to the order of this Court, aforesaid, respondent no.1 has passed impugned order, i.e. Government Order no.33 - CAPD of 2016 dated 1st March 2016, whereby respondent no.1 has accorded sanction to issuance of Fair Price Shop Licence bearing CBC no.164 in favour of respondent no.7 and licence earlier issued in favour of petitioner has been cancelled. It is this order, petitioner is aggrieved of. The order impugned has been challenged primarily on the ground that direction to reconsider the matter was issued by this Court to respondent no.2 whereas order impugned has been passed by respondent no.1 and, therefore, the same is in violation of directions issued by this Court on 26th November 2014. Order impugned is also assailed on the ground that adequate opportunity of hearing was not afforded to petitioner before taking away his valuable right to run the shop under licence issued by respondent no.2.

2. Official respondents have filed their reply and the stand taken is that cancellation of licence issued in favour of petitioner was necessitated due to inability shown by petitioner to run Fair Price Shop due to his domestic engagements. It is stated that petitioner had not only executed an affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, wherein he has expressed his inability to run the affairs of Fair Price Shop due to personal problems, but had also submitted his No Objection Certificate for transfer of licence in favour of respondent no.7. It is further stated by respondents that after change of heart by petitioner and directions issued by this Court in OWP no.490/2014, the matter was reconsidered by respondent no.2. Petitioner as also respondent no.7 were summoned to appear in person and were given adequate opportunity to represent their case. Respondent no.2 even constituted a Committee to enquire into matter in depth and report after hearing both parties. The Committee also put both parties to notice and heard them on their respective stand. The Committee, constituted by respondent no.2, concluded that Fair Price Shop Licence, issued in favour of petitioner, deserves to be cancelled and also gave its recommendations for issuance of licence in favour of respondent no.7. It is, however, clarified that since licencing authority is respondent no.1 and no Fair Price Licence can be issued or cancelled without approval of respondent no.1 and, accordingly, respondent no.2 referred the mat