JUDGMENT
Pradip Mohanty, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 10.01.2005 (Annexure-1) passed by the Sub-Collector, Panposh, opposite party No. 3, suspending its retail PDS licence.
2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a Welfare Association being represented by its President. It was granted retail licence to deal in PDS rice, kerosene, wheat and sugar for Khutagaon, Bagdega and Chitapidi G.Ps. under Nuagaon Block. In the capacity of a retail licensee, the petitioner has been discharging its duty in distribution of the aforesaid PDS commodities sincerely. Opposite party No. 3, all on a sudden, suspended the licence of the petitioner by order under Annexure-1 for which the petitioner has felt aggrieved and approached this Court.
3. Mr. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that opposite party No. 3 has illegally suspended the retail PDS licence of the petitioner in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. He further submits that no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner before suspension of its licence. Therefore, the order under Annexure-1 is illegal.
4. Ms. Kasturi, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, submits that the Sub-Collector (opposite party No. 3) who is the licensing authority, has the power to cancel or suspend the licence and tag the distribution with any other retailer.
5. To appreciate the contention for the parties, Clause 10 of the Orissa Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2002 is quoted hereunder.
“10. Contravention of conditions of licence – No holder of a licence issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf shall contravene any of the terms or conditions of the licence and if any such person contravenes any of the said terms and conditions, without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him, his licence may be cancelled or suspended by order in writing of the licensing authority.
Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension.”
A bare reading of Clause 10 shows that power of cancellation/ suspension vests with the licensing authority. The proviso to the said clause, however, makes it clear that no order of suspension/ cancellation shall be made unless the licensee is given a reasonable opportunity to state his case. Therefore, before passing an order of cancellation/suspension, the licensing authority, i.e., the Sub-Collector, has to issue a notice to show cause and after considering the causes shown, he may pass an order of cancellation/suspensions.
6. In the instant case, neither the principle of natural justice has been observed before passing the order in Annexure-1 nor is there any material on record to justify the suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court in Sarala Distributors, Baro v. Collector, Kendrapara, 1995 (II) OLR 290, wherein it has been held that an order of cancellation or suspension is to be passed only after affording a reasonable opportunity and after recording the reasons. This having not been done in the case at hand, the order in Annexure-1 is illegal and liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the order in Annexure-1 is quashed. It is, however, open to the licensing authority, opposite party No. 3, to pass appropriate order after giving the petitioner an opportunity to show cause in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of this order.