Existing fair price shop licenses remain effective unless legally challenged, emphasizing that administrative errors cannot impede lawful license holders.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 as well as Ms. K Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025. Also heard Mr. K Gogoi, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Assam who appears on behalf of the official respondents in both the writ petitions.

2. The tussle in both the writ petitions pertain to a fair price shop (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fair Price Shop in question’) at village Kajidahar, Part III. It is relevant to take note of that the Fair Price Shop in question was earlier run by one Riyajul Hoque Choudhury having License No.1715 and FPS Code No.13700100416 under Narsingpur Co-operative Society Limited. The license holder of the said Fair Price shop, namely Riyajul Hoque Choudhury, expired during the COVID-19 pandemic. Resultantly, the ration cards which were tagged with the Fair Price Shop in question were attached to the Fair Price shop of another village owned by one Farhana Begum Barbhuiya.

3. The materials on record clearly show that the petitioner, in WP(C)No.5400/2020, was thereupon issued the license for the fair price shop in question bearing No.3415(New). This was done pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner Cachar, Silchar, on 08.07.2020 and in that regard, an identity book was also issued in favour of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5400/2020.

4. The grievance of the petitioner in the WP(C)No.5400/2020 is that in spite of having issued the license, the respondent authorities have not supplied the essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop in question under the license of the petitioner and it is under such circumstances the writ petition being WP(C)No.5400/2020 was filed.

5. Be that as it may, while the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 had already been issued the license bearing No.3415 in respect to the fair price shop in question, the petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025 continued to pursue for the license in respect to the said Fair Price Shop in question. It is also seen that there was a resolution adopted by the Narsingpur Cooperative Society Ltd., recommending that the petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025 should be issued the license for the fair price shop in question.

6. This Court duly takes note of the fact that various residents of the village also have requested the authorities to issue the license in favour of the writ petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025. However, as neither the resolution of the Narsingpur Cooperative Society Limited nor the representation submitted by the various persons connected with the fair price shop in question was considered, the writ petition being WP(C)No.697/2025 was filed.

7. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the affidavits which have been filed by the State respondents as well as the replies filed by the petitioners.

8. It is seen that the official respondents have duly admitted that the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 was issued the license in favour of the fair price shop in question bearing license No.3415. However, in view of the pendency of WP(C)No.697/2025, the supply of the essential commodities have not been made to the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020.

9. This Court also duly takes note of that the petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025 have sought for a mandamus for consideration of his case for being appointed as the license holder in respect to the Fair Price Shop in question. This Court finds it very pertinent to observe that it appears that the petitioner is not either aware of the fact that the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 have already been issued the