Hafizul Hussain v. The State of Assam and 8 Ors

ORDER 02-01-2023 Heard Shri M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri R. Talukdar, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8 whereas the private respondent No. 9 is represented by Shri M. U. Mondal. The grievance expressed in this writ petition is against the license issued in favour of the private respondent No. 9 for a fair price shop. It is the case of the petitioner that the earlier license holder in that area is one Meera Sultana Bewa who was the aunt of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have been adopted by the earlier license holder and was operating the shop on her behalf. On 13.06.2012, the license holder had expired and accordingly the petitioner had submitted representation dated 27.05.2013 for issuing a license in his name and/or to convert the existing Page No.# 3/4 license. Such representation was submitted before the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Bilasipara Sub-Division and the same was also forwarded to the Departmental Minister. However, by the impugned order dated 18.08.2015, the license has been issued in favour of the respondent No. 9. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dehors the fact that the petitioner is related to the earlier license holder, he is entitled to a fair and opportunity and scope in the selection process which according to the petitioner was not known. He further submits that by running the shop on behalf of the earlier license holder for a long period of time, he had gathered sufficient experience and was a better candidate than the respondent No. 9 and these relevant considerations have been overlooked which requires an intervention by this Court in the decision making process by which the license has been granted in favour of the respondent No. 9. Shri R. Talukdar, learned State Counsel by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 17.02.2016 submits that the rules holding the field, namely, the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order 1982, there is no provision to give any benefit to a legal heir and all license are issued by maintaining the standard of fairness and transparency. Refuting the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner, Shri Talukdar, the learned State Counsel has referred to the averments made in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition in which it has been categorically stated that both the applicant and the petitioner were afforded personal hearing before culminating the process of issuance of license. It has further been stated that as per Clause 20(C) of the Order Of 1982, the SDO (C) wields the power of the licensing authority. Shri M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9 submits that the writ petition has been filed on a misconceived notion that certain benefits are available to the legal heirs of all previous license holders. Disputing that such benefits are available, Shri Mondal submits that after a fair process, the respondent No. 9 was selected for the license. Shri Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the Page No.# 4/4 contentions made in the affidavit of the Department regarding personal hearing are not correct. He accordingly submits that the matter be remanded for a fresh consideration. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, a situation has arisen where there are questions of fact which are disputed by the rival parties. At this stage, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Department attains importance. In the said affidavit-in-opposition dated 17.02.2016, it has been stated that no benefits accrue upon the legal heirs of a previous license holder. The said affidavit-in-opposition also contains a specific statement of giving a personal hearing to the contesting parties including the petitioner and this statement has not been refuted by any rejoinder affidavit by the petitioner. It is seen that the aforesaid counter affidavit was filed in February 2016 and till today there is no such rebuttal. The Department has also stated that powers are vested upon the CDO (C) to issue the license and the same was granted by following all the requisite formalities and all such averments have gone unrebutted. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for intervention by a Court exercising writ jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010123552015 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6935/2015o HAFIZULoHUSSAINo S/O-oLT.oSIDDIQUEoHUSSAIN,oVILL.-oKAZIPARA,oPART-oI,oP.O.oandoP.S.-o CHAPAR,oDIST.-oDHUBRI,oASSAM. VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo8oORSo THROUGHoTHEoSECY.oTOoTHEoGOVT.oOFoASSAM,oFOODoANDoCIVILo SUPPLIESoDEPTT.,oDISPUR,oGHY-o6. 2:THEoDIRECTORoOFoFOODoANDoCIVILoSUPPLIES oASSAM. 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoOFoLOWERoASSAMoDIVISION oDISPUR oGHY-o6. 4:THEoDY.oCOMMISSIONER oDHUBRI oP.O. oP.S.oandoDIST.-oDHUBRI oASSAM. 5:THEoDY.oDIRECTORoOFoFOODoANDoCIVILoSUPPLIES oDHUBRI oP.O. oP.S.oandoDIST.-oDHUBRI oASSAM. 6:THEoSUB-DIVISIONALoOFFICERoCIVIL oBILASHIPARA oDHUBRI oASSAM. 7:THEoFOODoANDoCIVILoSUPPLIESoINSPECTOR Page No.# 2/4 BILASHIPARA SUB-DIVISION BILASHIPARA DHUBRI ASSAM. 8:THE AREA OFFICER FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BILASHIPARA DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. 9:SHAHJAHAN ALI S/O- LT. OSMAN FAKIR R/O VILL.- KAZIPARA PART- I WARD NO. 4 P.O. and P.S.- CHAPUR DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783371 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D M KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI