LALMUANPUII Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned G. A. for the State respondents.

(2.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order-dated 30. 1. 2008 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by the District Civil Supply Officer, Aizawl West, by which the petitioner's appointment as Fair Price Shop Retailer has been cancelled w. e. f. 31. 1. 2008 and in her place one Pi Sanghmingthangi, W/o. Zothanpara, Bungkawn, respondent No. 4 was appointed. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Fair Price Shop (Retailer) for a period of 2 years from the date of her appointment till 31. 7. 2009 vide Order issued under Memo No. B. 15015/6/2001/dcso (W) dated 30. 7. 2007 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl. On the strength of this appointment order, the petitioner has been discharging her function and duties of a retailer of Fair Price Shop at Bungkawn-1, Aizawl. It is also her case that she has been issued Licence for dealing with control items under the provision of Mizoram Trade Articles (Licensing and Control) Order, 1987. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no complaint against the petitioner in discharging her functions and duties as Retailer of Fair Price Shop but her appointment was cancelled by the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2008 without serving any notice on her at the behest of some political/vested interest to accommodate the private respondent No. 4 which, according to learned counsel, is apparent from the order itself wherein it is stated that the cancellation order has been issued as per instruction of Private Secretary to Minister, FCS and CA etc. vide his U. O. No. MOS. 13/fcs and CA/2006/que dated 29. 1. 2008. According to Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order has been issued in an arbitrary manner in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

(3.) I have carefully gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents and found that it is not accompanied by any document to show that the petitioner was appointed as Retailer for a period of 5 months or to show that the Retailership cannot be appointed for a period of 2 years a time. There is no specific denial in the affidavit-in-opposition that no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the impugned order dated 30. 1. 2008 so as to the afford her an opportunity of hearing.