NERUL ISLAM LASKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is the second phase of litigation pertaining to sub wholesale dealership licence of kerosene oil.

(2.) The petitioner is an unemployed graduate finding no alternative for employment decided to start business within the territorial jurisdiction of Mohanpur Gaon Panchayat level Co-operative Society Ltd. within the district Hilakandi. As many as 40 numbers of retail fair price shop dealers have been deing business in kerosene oil under the supervision of Gaon Panchayat level Co-operative Society Ltd. But since the Panchayat could not provide any storage, the retail fair price shop dealers had been facing great difficulties to lift kerosene oil from the wholeseller situated at a long distance. The petitioner applied for sub-wholesaler dealership licence for storage and selling kerosene oil at Algapur, Hilakandi. The authority having considered the feasibility, capability etc. issued a storage licence under the Petroleum Act, 1954 vide licence dated 10-9-1996 for storage of 25,000 Its. of kerosene oil. The said licence was renewed from time to time and is valid upto December, 2003. For dealing in kerosene oil, the Asst. Director. Food & Civil Supplies Depart- ment. Government of Assam issued a sub- wholesaler dealership licence in favour of the petitioner vide No. HSAPDA-K.Oil/4 dated 5-10-1996 and that has also been renewed from time to time with validity upto 31-3- 2002. Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Food & Civil Supplies department vide memo No. FSA/200/94/292-A dated 19-10-2000 asked the Deputy Commissioner to allot S. K. oil to sub-wholesale dealers with the maximum limit of 25,000 Its. While the petitioner had been doing his business uninterruptedly, suddenly, the Deputy Commissioner, Hilakandi vide memo No. H.S. 26/96/685 dated 26-1-2000 issued an order "keeping in abeyance" the sub- wholesaler dealership licence of the petitioner along with few others mainly on the ground that "in the kerosene restriction on use and fixation of selling price order, 1993, there is no provision under which sub- wholesaler licences could be issued." though another sub-wholesaler dealership licence holder Sri Dulal Dutta had not been disturbed. However, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 8255/01 and this Court while issuing Notice of Motion, stayed the operation of the order of Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner filed a petition seeking vacation of the interim order passed in that writ petition and the learned single Judge after hearing the parties vacated the interim order with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Hilakandi to take final decision and to pass appropriate orders within a month. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved a writ appeal before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 142/2002 and the Honble Division Bench vide order dated 23-4-2002, though declined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, yet directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hilakandi to finalise the matter with a speaking order after allowing opportunities of being heard to the petitioner. Subsequently, without allowing opportunity of being heard effectively, the Deputy Commissioner, Hilakandi cancelled the sub-wholesaler dealership licence of the petitioner by impugned order dated 25-6-2002 which has been put under challenge in the second phase of litigation in the present writ petition.

(3.) The State respondents filed counter- affidavit contending, inter alia, that after holding inquiry, it was detected that the petitioner and some other sub-wholesalers were defaulters in not obtaining approval of the Government to run such business nor they obtained any no objection certificate from the concerned GPSS. The authority initially suspended the licence and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard, cancelled same by the impugned order and in doing so, the Deputy Commissioner committed no wrong or illegality. It is further contended in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner "charged extra/excess amount from the dealers" in selling the kerosene oil and the authority on receipt of the complaint investigated the same and found the allegation to be correct. Hence the authority issued the cancellation order.