MOCCHA JOYNAB BEGUM Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge is to the cancellation of the petitioner's licence issued under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter also referred to as the 'order'), to act as a retailer in Superior Kerosene Oil for Haripur village under the Haripur Grahampur SS Ltd. This Court by order dated 28. 9. 2006, had kept in abeyance the impugned order dated 25. 9. 2006. It is submitted at the Bar that on the very same date following the cancellation of the petitioner's licence, the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon, had issued a fresh licence in favour of the respondent No. 5. The said respondent has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 4189 of 2006, praying for alteration/modification/cancellation and/or vacation of the interim order.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Roy, learned State counsel for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. S. Huda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

(3.) THE facts in brief essential for the adjudication, are that the petitioner having applied for retailer of the S. K. Oil before the concerned authorities of the Food and Civil Supplies Department, was issued a licence under the Order as above on 11. 12. 1998. The same was renewed from time to time and lastly upto 31. 3. 2007. The petitioner was authorized to distribute thereunder 400 litres of S. K. Oil per month to the consumers of the Haripur village. In order to strengthen her hands in the business, she with the due permission of the authorities concerned authorized her brother Md. Moinul Abedin Sheikh to collect the monthly quota of S. K. Oil from the concerned Depot and distribute the same among the consumers within her area of operation. While the matter rested at that, she got married to one Mainul Haque of village Dharmasala Part IV in Dhubri District in the year 2004. She, however, in the meantime, having taken up a teaching assignment in a venture school in the same village continued to reside there to look after her business as well. On 12. 9. 2006, the respondent No. 5 along with others, lodged a complaint with the Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon, alleging inter alia that the petitioner was staying with her husband in Dharmasala after her marriage and that she had faltered in the distribution of kerosene oil of the villagers to their great prejudice. Thereby, a request was also made to cancel the licence of the petitioner and grant it in favour of the respondent No. 5. On receipt of the complaint, the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supply, Gossaigaon caused an enquiry to be conducted by the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon, who on the completion thereof, submitted a report on 28. 8. 2006. Acting thereon, the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon, on 8. 9. 2006, issued a notice to the petitioner asking her to show cause as to why in view of the revelations in the inquiry her licence should not be cancelled being a non-resident of Haripur village in Gossaigaon Sub-Division. The petitioner submitted her reply, contending inter alia that though married, she had been residing in Haripur village and not with her husband at village Dharmasala. She disclosed that in Haripur village, not only, was she attending the business adequately but also had a teaching job as Assistant Teacher in Azad M. E. Madrassa (venture school ). She also mentioned that though at an earlier point of time, her name was registered in the electoral roll of the 23 Dhubri L. A. Constitutency, the same had been deleted by the order dated 3. 8. 2006 of the Election Officer, Dhubri and that her name presently appeared in the electoral roll of 28 Gossaigaon L. A. Constituency. She categorically asserted that there was no flaw in her operation under the licence and that she was ordinarily a resident of village Haripur. She questioned the finding of the inquiry officer to the effect that she was a non-resident of the said village. By the impugned order, however, her licence was cancelled on the followed grounds :