Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010146802022 2025:GAU-AS:9100 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5149/2022 RINA BEGUM LASKAR @ RINA BEGUM D/O LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN LASKAR, VILL-DAKSHIN MOHANPUR PART-V, P.O.-KACUDARAM, DIST-CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT CACHAR ASSAM 4:DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR ASSAM 5:THE AREA OFFICER FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT CACHAR ASSA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, B. PATHAK,MS A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 15.07.2025 Heard Shri A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri H. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the official respondents. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is a Fair Price Shop owner under the Mongolpur Buali Hawor Coperative Society Ltd. in the district of Cachar. The petitioner was duly issued license being No.2747 and was allotted a Fair Price Shop Code being No.131600101154. It is contended that the petitioner was catering to the needs of 54 nos. of ration card holders. However, by wrong application of a policy decision, the consumers of the petitioner were tagged along with another Fair Price Shop. 3. Shri Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the policy decision applies to a Fair Price Shop having less than 50 nos. of card holders and the said clause was not applicable to the case of the petitioner, who admittedly had 54 nos. of card holders. 4. Shri Sarma, learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that the policy decision was applied as the data had revealed that the number of card holders was 41. However, it was later detected that due to transfer of certain consumers, the number of card holders had increased to 54. He has submitted Page No.# 3/4 that the aforesaid position has been clarified in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.3 on 23.11.2022. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the validity of the policy which requires tagging of Fair Price Shop having less than 50 nos. of card holders to a nearby Fair Price Shop which is done for exigency of service and convenience. However, in the instant case, it clearly appears that the tagging of the shop of the petitioner was done on a wrong premise by taking the data of card holders as 41, which however had increased to 54. In this regard, the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 are to be taken into consideration, which reads as follows: “4. … It may be mentioned that the list of FPS agent having less than 50 nos beneficiaries forwarded by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Assam was prepared on the basis of the status of June, 2021. As per the status record, number of beneficiaries against the petitioner FPS was only 41. But further record has shown that due to transfer of some beneficiaries to the petitioner’s FPS in subsequent period the number of beneficiaries goes up to 54. This process of increasing the number of beneficiaries against the petitioner’s fair price shop was not recognized by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Assam as mentioned earlier. So the FPS of the petitioner was tagged with the nearest fair price shop of Eyam Uddin Mazumdar.” Page No.# 4/4 7. This Court is of the considered view that the stand of the official respondents being clear on the aspect that the tagging was done on the premises that the number of card holders was less than the prescribed numbers as per the policy decision, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed by directing that the consumers which were initially tagged with the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner be restored back. The said exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 9. Cost made easy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant