Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010023392024 2026:GAU-AS:9680 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1326/2024 PRABIR NANDI S/O- LATE PULIN CH. NANDI, R/O- VILLAGE- ADOI BOSTI, P.S- UDHARBOND, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN-788030 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ASSAM, BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 KAMRUP(M), ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR P.O.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM, PIN- 788001. 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CACHAR, SILCHAR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFARIS P.O.- SILCHAR DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM, PIN- 788001. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFARIS P.O.- SILCHAR, DISTRICT- CACHAR ASSAM, PIN- 788001. Page No.# 2/6 6:THE SECRETARY KHASPUR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED SALGANGA, DIST- CACHAR ASSAM, PIN-78801 B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri B. Chakravarty, Advocate. Advocates for the respondents : Shri M. Chetia, GA. Date of hearing and pronouncement of judgment : 15.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Shri B. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri M. Chetia, learned State Counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Though this writ petition was instituted in the year 2024, notice is yet to be issued. However, pursuant to certain directions passed earlier, the contesting respondent no. 3 has filed the affidavit on 03.06.2024. Considering the above position and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage. 3. The challenge is with regard to an order dated 11.05.2023 passed by the Superintendent, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Silchar whereby the Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner has been cancelled in exercise of powers under Clause 15 (2) of the Assam Public Distribution Articles Page No.# 3/6 Order, 1982. The grievance extends to the rejection of the appeal vide an order dated 20.10.2023. 4. Shri Chakravorty, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the primary ground of rejection is non compliance of the ePoS (Electronic Point of Sale). He has submitted that the aforesaid mechanism, though imposed would be governed by the guidelines. He has submitted that the area in question is in the remote location of Udharbond in the district of Cachar where there is internet connectivity issues. He has specifically pointed out that Clause 2.6.2 of the RFP (Model Request for Proposal) document itself stipulates occasional offline mode in case of connectivity issues. He has also submitted that there is a provision for making inspection under Clause 5.1.1 with regard to mobile footprint. It is specifically submitted that without taking recourse of the aforesaid Clause 5.1.1 which stipulates an inspection, an assumption was done that there was no distribution made by the petitioner. He has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant factors. He has also placed before this Court a document of offline distributions according to which it shows that in the concerned period, there was substantial distribution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Santanu Medhi Vs State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) GLT 253 wherein it has mandated that all the points taken up in the response to a show cause notice are required to be considered before passing any orders in a proceeding for cancellation of such license. He has also submitted that the aspect of internet connection was also taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs Union of India reported in (2019) 1 SCC 1 and the relevant Page No.# 4/6 observations which have been relied upon are extracted herein below: “1404. … (b) Point of Sale (PoS) machines: The process at the PDS outlet is dependent on the PoS machine. If it malfunctions, no transaction can be made. The first step in the process requires the dealer to enter the Ration Card number of the beneficiary's household onto the PoS machine; (c) Internet connection: Successful working of the PoS machine depends on internet connectivity as verification of the Ration Card number and the beneficiary's biometric fingerprint is carried out over the internet; …”. 6. On the other hand, Shri Chetia, the learned State Counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3 on 03.06.2020 has submitted that the petitioner did not make endeavours to switch to the e-mode. He has also submitted that the records would show that in a single day i.e. 29.04.2023, the petitioner had made transaction to 123 numbers of beneficiaries which would itself show the mala fide on the part of the petitioner. 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered. 8. It is the specific case of the petitioner that for switching to the e-mode, the aspect of internet connectivity would be an essential factor. In fact, the RFP document also envisages such a situation by incorporating Clause 2.6.2 and Clause 5.1.1 which are as follows: “2.6.2. Occasionally Offline Mode ePoS application shall allow to make the transactions both online and occasionally offline (for both sales and commodity receiving) based on the configuration set at the backend. Mode of transactions, i.e., occasionally offline or online, depends on the availability of internet connection. When occasionally offline sale happens, required sales details are saved in local database. For the sale to happen offline, there are many essential details to be retrieved from main server and stored locally for that particular FPS.” 5.1.1. Mobile footprint survey: Page No.# 5/6 1. The Sl must conduct the mobile foot print (Signal strength) survey across all FPSs falling in the groups/divisions/district allocated to them and identify and map FPSs with the mobile internet service provider who is providing the most reliable connectivity in their region. ….” 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that no such inspection was done in spite of complaints made. 10. This Court has also noticed that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing WP(C)/5178/2023 in which this Court vide order dated 08.09.2023 had directed consideration of the appeal in accordance with law. In the appeal so filed, there is a specific reference to the internet connectivity issue. In the impugned order dated 11.05.2023 or the appellate order dated 20.10.2023, the aforesaid issue has not been taken into consideration. It also appears that the specific case of the petitioner that there was offline distribution which is sought to be supported by a document showing 60.77% of such distribution also does not appear to have been taken into consideration. 11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a fresh consideration of the case of the petitioner is required to be made by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the appellate authority is set aside and the appeal is remanded back to the appellate authority, i.e. District Commissioner, Cachar to reconsider the appeal in accordance with law and by taking into consideration the aspects specifically noted by this Court above. It is also provided that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing at the time of consideration of such appeal. 12. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken and completed expeditiously and Page No.# 6/6 preferably within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The outcome of the consideration is required to be communicated to the petitioner. JUDGE Comparing Assistant