Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Confined To Reviewing Decision-Making Process, Not Merits: Gauhati High Court Refuses To Interfere With PDS Licence Cancellation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a fair price shop (PDS) licence and declined to interfere with the administrative order passed by the Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs authorities. The petitioners, who held the PDS licence, sought relief under Article 226 contending that the cancellation followed allegations and an enquiry in which they were denied a fair opportunity. The Court held that its certiorari jurisdiction is limited to scrutinising the decision-making process, including whether relevant factors were considered and whether the action was vitiated by extraneous considerations, and not to reassessing the merits; it found no ground for intervention and rejected the challenge.
The writ petition was instituted by Fair Price Shop licence holders challenging an order dated 02.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Director (In-Charge), Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, cancelling their Public Distribution System licence. The petitioners contended that they were running the Fair Price Shop in accordance with law until allegations were levelled against them, leading to suspension of the licence on 11.06.2018. This was followed by a show cause notice dated 19.06.2018 and an additional show cause notice dated 05.08.2018 issued by the Additional Deputy Director (In-Charge). The petitioners submitted their reply on 08.11.2018.
The challenge was primarily on the ground of alleged denial of opportunity during the enquiry and alleged conflict of interest due to the involvement of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who, according to the petitioners, affected the appellate remedy under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982. The State opposed the petition contending that all procedural safeguards were followed, that sufficient opportunity was granted, and that the statutory appellate mechanism remained unaffected. The matter arose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court examined the sequence of proceedings and noted that “the Show Cause Notice issued on 19.06.2018 was preceded by an order of suspension which was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/1431/2019.” It recorded that in the earlier writ petition, the Court had “directed for conclusion of the proceeding within 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.”
The Court observed that “the certified copy however appears to have been served on the authorities only on 10.08.2022 whereafter the impugned order has been passed.” It further recorded that “the suspension order, as such was not interfered with by this Court in the order dated 15.03.2019.”
On the contention regarding prejudice to the appellate remedy, the Court examined Order 29 and stated that “if the order is made by any Officer lower in rank than the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal would lie before the Deputy Commissioner.” It rejected the argument that the additional show cause notice vitiated the process, observing that “the Additional Deputy Commissioner cannot be equated in rank with the Deputy Commissioner.”
Regarding opportunity of hearing, the Court recorded that “due opportunity was granted to the petitioners and they had in fact filed the response on 08.11.2018 which was duly considered by the disciplinary authority.” It further observed that “a perusal of the impugned order would show that the defence of the petitioners was duly considered and all the relevant factors have been taken into consideration.”
On the scope of judicial review, the Court stated that The certiorari jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be confined to the decision making process and not to the merits of the decision. In other words, the examination is on the aspect as to whether the relevant factors have been taken into consideration or as to whether the impugned decision is based on extraneous factors and irrelevant consideration. The aspect of jurisdiction of the authority passing the order may also be examined which is not the case in hand. There are also no allegations of mala fide in passing of the impugned order.”
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court reproduced the principles governing writ jurisdiction and noted that “the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal” and that a writ of certiorari “should not be issued on mere asking.”
After considering the facts and the scope of judicial review, the Court recorded that “no case for interference is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri B. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri S.R. Baruah, Government Advocate, Assam
Case Title: Hem Bahadur Pradhan @ Newar & Anr. v. State of Assam & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: GAU-AS:821
Case Number: WP(C)/7100/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi
