Dipak Kumar Roy @ Ray v. State of Assam and Ors

ORDER

11.09.2024. Heard Shri K Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri RK Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC. Also heard Shri YS Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 11.

¶2The grievance raised in this petition is towards a decision to allot a fair price licence to the respondent no. 11 and tagging 46 nos. of households which were initially with the petitioner.

¶3As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a licence holder for a fair price shop, being Licence No. KZSM-20/2009/PDS/(R/S)/ 123. The same was issued by the Superintendent, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Prabatjhora, Kazigaon, BTC in the district of Kokrajhar. It is submitted that the petitioner was running his business smoothly and without any complaint and the licence had incorporated both Part-I and Part-II of the Dukhisukhi village. It, however, transpires that on the basis of certain complaints, the respondent no. 11 was issued a licence for a fair price shop and vide an order dated 24.10.2016, 46 nos. of households were tagged with the fair price shop of the said respondent no. 11.

¶4Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner Page No.# 4/6 was running the business without any complaints and the aforesaid action is wholly arbitrary and irrational. He has also submitted that it appears that the impugned action is a result of certain alleged complaints where he was not given any opportunity of hearing before the impugned action. It is also submitted that no copies of the complaint, whatsoever was furnished to the petitioner. He has clarified that initially 1814 nos. of consumers were attached to the petitioner and by the impugned action, 126 nos. of consumers are sought to be separated which constitutes 46 nos. of households. He has also submitted that when this writ petition was moved, this Court vide an order dated 07.12.2016 while issuing notice had passed an interim order suspending the impugned order dated 24.10.2016.

¶5Shri Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, BTC has, however, submitted that the impugned action has been taken in the larger interest of public. By referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 13.03.2019, he has submitted that there was complaint in the functioning of the petitioner and therefore, a decision was taken to tag the complainants from the petitioner to the respondent no. 11 who was granted licence to run a fair price shop. It is submitted that the number of consumers tagged with the petitioner being substantial which is 1814, the impugned action will not have a major impact on the business of the petitioner.

¶6Shri Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 has submitted that the said respondent was selected to be allotted a fair price shop licence in the Dukhisukhi Part-II village after making a selection wherein, there were 3 numbers of aspirants. It is submitted that his selection is not even the subject matter of challenge and the decision to tag certain numbers of households with his client is only for the benefit of the villagers. He has also highlighted that the village in which the respondent no. 11 has been granted the fair price shop, namely, Dukhisukhi Part-I is about a distance 2/3 kilometres from the Dukhisukhi Part-II village. The learned counsel for the respondent Page No.# 5/6 no. 11 has, however, submitted that though the licence was issued, due to the interim order passed by this Court, the consumers are still attached to the shop of the petitioner.

¶7The rival submissions have been duly considered.

¶8The impugned action of tagging 46 nos. of households from the petitioner's fair price shop to the shop of the respondent no. 11 is apparently based on certain complaints. Though the numbers involved in the process of such tagging may not be substantial vis-a-vis the total number of the consumers, a right which was vested upon the petitioner to run his fair price shop with certain numbers of households which constitutes 1814 consumers would undoubtedly be adversely affected. The minimum requirement was to afford a show cause notice to the petitioner, including furnishing of a copy of the complaint so that he gets a chance to explain the matter which, admittedly has not been done. Though a fair price shop owner/licence holder would not have a indefeasible right to demand a particular number of consumers to be attached to him, the authorities can, for the interest of justice, tag certain consumers to another licence holder for sake of convenience and public interest which, however, is required to be done in a manner prescribed by law. This Court has also taken note of the fact that vide the aforesaid interim order dated 07.12.2016, the impugned order dated 24.10.2016 has been suspended.

¶9In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced by interfering with the impugned order dated 24.10.2016. The interim order dated 07.12.2016 is accordingly made absolute. It is, however, made clear that the interference is only on the aspect of violation of the principles of natural justice and if the authorities so desire, due opportunity be given to the petitioner before taking any action for detagging any consumer from his shop Page No.# 6/6 and attaching the same to any other shop, including that of the respondent no. 11.

¶10The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/6 GAHC010030532016 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/7020/2016o DIPAKoKUMARoROYo@oRAYo S/OoLT.oPUSPAoNATHoROYoR/OoVILL-oDUKHISUKHIoPART-II,oP.O.o MOTERJHARoUNDERoKAZIGAONoPOLICEoSTATIONoDIST.oKOKRAJHAR,o BTC,oASSAM-o783334 VERSUSo STATEoOFoASSAMoandoORS.o REP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARY,oDEPARTMENToOFoFOODoANDoCIVILoSUPPLY,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATIo-o781006. 2:THEoSECRETARY oFOOD CIVILoSUPPLIESoandoCONSUMARoAFFAIRS oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 3:DEPUTYoCOMMISSIONER oKOKRAJHAR BTC oASSAM. 4:SUB-DIVISIONALoOFFICERoCIVIL oKAJIGAON oKOKRAJHAR oBTC oASSAM. 5:COUNCILoHEADoOFoDEPARTMENT PageoNo.#o2/6 oFOODoCIVILoSUPPLIESoANDoCONSUMERoAFFAIRS oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 6:JOINToDIRECTOR oFOOD oCIVILoSUPPLIESoANDoCONSUMERoAFFAIRS oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 7:ASSISTANToDIRECTOR oFOOD oCIVILoSUPPLIESoANDoCONSUMERoAFFAIRS oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 8:DISTRICToDEPUTYoREGISTRARoOFoCOOPERATIVEoSOCIETIES oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 9:SUPERINTENDENT oFOODoCIVILoSUPPLIESoANDoCONSUMERoAFFAIRS oPARBATJHORAoKAZIGAON oBTC oKOKRAJHAR oASSAM. 10:PARBAToJOWARoSMABAYoSAMITYoLIMITED oREP.oBYoITSoCHAIRMAN oP.O.oBASHBARI oKOKRAJHAR oBTC oASSAM-o783337. 11:SHRIMATIoSWAPNAoROYoPRADHANI oW/OoSHRIoNIVASHoROYoPRADHANIoR/OoVILL-oDUKHISUKHIoPART-I oP.O.oMOTERJHARoUNDERoKAZIGAONoPOLICEoSTATION oDIST.oKOKRAJHAR oBTC Page No.# 3/6 ASSAM- 783334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D DAS, MS.K M SARMA,MR.K SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BTC, GA, ASSAM,MR.M GARODIA(R-11),MR.Y S MANNAN(R-11),MS.P TAYE(R-11),MS.S GOHAIN(R-11) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI