Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010236662024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5888/2024 NUR HUSSAIN SK AND ANR S/OLT. TOSER UDDIN R/O VILL- SAGUNCHORA,P.O. SRINAGAR, P.S. TAMARHAT, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783332. 2: IBRAHIM ALI S/O AJIBUR RAHMAN R/O VILL- POKALAGI P.O. KAMANDANGA P.S. TAMARHAT DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS TO BE REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER FOOD PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI-07. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI Page No.# 2/4 P.O. P.S. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783301 4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER (CIVIL) GOSSAIGAON P.O. GOSSAIGAON DIST. KOKRAJHAR BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) PIN- 783360 5:THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS GOSSAIGAO BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL (BTC) DIST. KOKRAJHAR ASSAM PIN-78336 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, T TALUKDAR,S BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 10.06.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner no.1 was issued a Fair Price Shop Dealer Licence in the year 1998, while the petitioner no.2 was issued a Fair Price Shop Dealer Licence in the year 2008, for running fair shops. The petitioners’ grievance is that while other fair price shop dealers had been given Page No.# 3/4 “Point of Sale Device” (e-POS device), the petitioners were not given the same. Further, the respondent no.5 issued the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 tagging the ration card holders of the petitioners with the other fair price shops, on the ground that the petitioners were not given their e-POS devices. 3. The petitioners’ counsel thus submits that when the petitioners fair price shops had more than 50 ration card holders, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to tag the ration card holders of the petitioners’ fair price shops with other fair price shops. 4. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 has submitted letter no. GSM.1 2025/159 dated 27.05.2025 issued by the Assistant Director, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs (FPD & CA), Gossaigaon, which is to the effect that both the petitioners fair price shops possessed more than 50 ration card holders and it was probably due to a technical difficulty or communication gap, that all the ration card holders of the petitioners’ fair price shops had not been made up-to-date in the ERCMS Portal. 5. Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 & 3 submits that in view of the above letter dated 27.05.2025, the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 would not be sustainable. 6. I have perused the contents of the letter dated 27.05.2025 issued by the Assistant Director, FPD & CA, Gossaigaon, which states that the petitioners fair price shops had more than 50 ration card holders each. The said letter dated Page No.# 4/4 27.05.2025 is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X. 7. In view of the contents of Annexure-X, it is quite apparent that there was no occasion for the State respondents to have attached the ration card holders of the petitioners fair price shops with other fair price shops and there was no reason not to provide the e-POS device to the petitioners. 8. In view of the above reasons, the impugned order dated 21.09.2024 passed by the Assistant Director, FPD & CA, Gossaigaon, is hereby set aside. The respondents are accordingly directed to re-attach the ration card holders of the petitioners’ fair price shops to the petitioners’ fair price shops and they are also to provide the petitioners with the “Point of Sale Device” (e-POS device) immediately. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant