In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court dismisses petition against PDS license cancellation, reiterating the importance of procedural fairness and jurisdictional limitations under Article 226.
In a recent judgment, the Gauhati High Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi, dismissed the petition challenging the cancellation of the Public Distribution System (PDS) license held by Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar and another petitioner. The petitioners contested the cancellation order dated September 2, 2022, issued by the Deputy Director (I/C), Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, citing procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to defend themselves.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Shri B. Sinha, argued that they were not adequately heard during the inquiry process, suggesting that procedural lapses led to the suspension of their license in 2018. They contended that the involvement of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) in the proceedings was contrary to established norms, as the Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982.
Responding to these claims, Shri S.R. Baruah, representing the State of Assam, asserted that all procedural safeguards were observed, providing the petitioners ample opportunity to respond to show cause notices. The State Counsel emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner would serve as the appellate authority, negating any prejudice to the petitioners' appeal rights.
The High Court meticulously examined the procedural history, noting the sequence of suspension and subsequent show cause notices. Justice Medhi pointed out that the petitioners had indeed responded to these notices, and their defenses were duly considered, as reflected in the impugned order. The court highlighted the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, which focuses on the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.
Justice Medhi referenced the Supreme Court's guidelines on extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, underscoring the discretionary nature of the remedy. The court reiterated that it does not function as an appellate body and should not reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the original authority unless there is an apparent error of law or jurisdictional overreach.
In dismissing the writ petition, the Gauhati High Court upheld the cancellation of the PDS license, affirming that procedural safeguards and equitable considerations were duly observed. This judgment reinforces the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction, emphasizing the balance between legal formulations and equitable justice.
Bottom Line:
Cancellation of PDS license - Procedural safeguards and opportunity of hearing are essential; High Court's certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to decision-making process, not merits of the decision.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982
Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2844808
