Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010218462024 2025:GAU-AS:14745 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5783/2024 ANGSHUMAN SARMA SON OF SRI KHAGEN SARMA, RESIDENT OF VILL- PACHIMPAR BAGHBARI, P.O.- RANGIA, P.S. RANGIA, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781354 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLY AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP AMINGAON ASSAM PIN- 781039 3:JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS NUMALIJALAH (PART) AMINGAON KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031 4:ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS RANGIA KAMRUP Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM PIN- 78135 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.K. Sen, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Baruah, Govt. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 31.10.2025 Mr. B.K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the instant writ petition the fair price shop license, for which, the petitioner applied was allocated to one Sri Chandan Sarma vide an order dated 02.08.2024. The learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the said order dated 02.08.2024, it appears that the basis on which the said fair price shop license has been settled with Sri Chandan Sarma is on the ground that he is the nephew of the earlier fair price shop license holder, who expired. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the petitioner’s application who was also the nephew of the earlier license holder was prior in time and as such, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered. 2. It is the opinion of this Court that the question of directing for consideration of the case of the petitioner at this stage Page No.# 3/3 pursuant to the order dated 02.08.2024 does not arise, unless and until, the order dated 02.08.2024 is put to challenge. 3. Mr. B.K. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in that view of the matter the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the instant writ petition without prejudice to his rights to assail the order dated 02.08.2024. 4. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 5. Liberty, however, is there upon the petitioner to assail the order dated 02.08.2024, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant