MD Azad Hussain Choudhury Vs the State of Assam 6 Ors.

MD AZAD HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE AZIZUR RAHMAN CHOUDHURY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAZIDAHAR PT- III PO.- BOALJUR PS SONAI PIN 788115 DIST CACHAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI - 781006 3:THE DIRECTOR FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT ASSAM

¶20

Page No.# 3/7

¶21

BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶22

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CACHAR CACHAR SILCHAR 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMERS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT CACHAR SILCHAR 6:THE INSPECTOR OF FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES CONSUMERS AFFAIRS CACHAR SILCHAR

¶23

7:THE NARSINGPUR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NARSINGPUR PO NARSINGPUR DIST CACHAR PIN- 78115 ------------

¶24

B E F O R E

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

¶26

Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. AR Bhuyan In WP(C)No.5400/2020 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Ms. K Deka In WP(C)No.697/2025

¶27

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. K Gogoi Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Assam

¶28

Date on which Judgment is reserved : NA

¶29

Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.03.2026

¶30

Page No.# 4/7

¶31

Whether the Pronouncement is of the : NA Operative Part of the Judgment

¶32

Whether the Full Judgment has been : Yes Pronounced

¶33

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

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

¶37

Page No.# 5/7

¶38

identity book was also issued in favour of the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.5400/2020.

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

Page No.# 6/7

¶45

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.

¶46

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 license in respect to the Fair Price Shop in question, or the petitioner had not disclosed the said aspect, inasmuch as, without a challenge or setting aside the license which had been issued, or the license having been cancelled in accordance with law, the question of passing of directions in the case of the petitioner in WP(C)No.697/2025 do not arise.

¶47

This Court also duly takes note of the reason why the respondents have not supplied the essential items to the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 i.e. on account of the pendency of WP(C)No.697/2025. It is the opinion of this Court that the reasons assigned does not appear to be a reasonable ground, taking into account that the petitioner in WP(C)No.5040/2020 was issued the license way back in the year 2020, and the writ petition being WP(C)No.697/2025 was filed 5(five) years thereafter.

¶48

Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:

¶49

(i). The Official respondents jointly and severely in WP(C)No.5400/2020 are directed to de-tag those ration cards which were originally tagged with the Fair Price Shop in question and subsequently tagged with the Fair price shop of

¶50

Page No.# 7/7

¶51

Farhana Begum Barbhuiya and thereafter tag those ration cards with the Fair Price Shop in question. Upon doing so, directions are further issued to supply the essential items to the Fair Price Shop in question, run under the license of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020.

¶52

(ii). The above exercise be completed within a period of 45 days from today, ensuring that there is no inconvenience to the ration card holders.

¶53

(iii). The writ petition being WP(C)No.697/2025 is without any merit and accordingly dismissed. The reason for dismissal is that the case of the petitioner under no circumstances can be considered for being granted the license, till the license in respect to the Fair Price Shop in question already granted to the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400/2020 is cancelled.

¶54

(iv). This Court, however, observes that the dismissal of WP(C)No.697/2025 shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the issuance of the license in favour of the petitioner in WP(C)No.5400 of the 2020, if so permissible under the law.

¶55

With the above, both the writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

MD Azad Hussain Choudhury v. the State of Assam 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Azad Hussain Choudhury v. the State of Assam 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 5 Ors. Vs Manoj Kalita

Lilefa Bibi @ Lilefa Khatun Vs Gyanendra Dev Tripathi and Anr.

On the Death of Basanta Kumar Talukdar His Legal Heirs Represented through Nibha Talukdar Vs Bijoy Talukdar

Dhanesh Medhi Vs Shri Anurag Goel, IAS

Padumi Boro Vs Smti Parvati Jalan

Shasadhar Mahanta @ Sasadhar Mahanta Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.