WP(C)/4870/2026 of NITAIPUKHURI GAON PANCHAYAT SAMABAY SAMITI LTD. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS on 6 September 2026

ORDER

07.09.2026

1. Heard Mr. A. Sarma, leanred counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Ms. M. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel for the Cooperative Societies, Assam representing the respondent Nos. 8 and 9.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 18.08.2026 issued by the Additional District Commissioner, Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Sivasagar, whereby, Demow Gaon Panchayat Samaby Samiti Limited which was earlier tagged with the petitioner’s society, has been temporarily re-tagged with Sivasagar Paikari Grahak Samabai Limited and by the consequential allocation/lifting order dated 24.08.2026.

3. The impugned order, on a plain reading is an administrative arrangement concerning the lifting and distribution of PDS and NFSA commodities. It has been passed in the backdrop of complaints regarding alleged discrepancies in the quantity of the commodities received by the Fair Price Shop Dealers and the decision taken in the meeting held on 14.07.2026, to ensure smooth and transparent distribution.

4. The record also indicates that the competent authority had obtained requisite clearance from the propose re-tagging.

5. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner ought to have been heard before such temporary re-tagging, cannot, in the facts of the present case, be accepted for the reason that the impugned order does not adjudicate any right of the petitioner nor does it recorded any findings of misconduct against it. The pendency of any enquiry based on complaints made, therefore, does not by itself preclude the competent authority from making an interim administrative arrangement in the larger interest of uninterrupted distribution of PDS commodities.

6. In the above circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition.

7. The contention that the impugned order is stigmatic, also does not merit acceptance. Though the impugned order records the allegation against the petitioner, however, it does not record any findings that the petitioner’s society or any of its office bearers has committed any misconduct, misappropriation of PDS commodities or acted improperly.

8. The reference in the impugned order to the complaint received from certain fair price shop dealers, is only a recital of the circumstances, which lead to the competent authority to consider a temporary change in arrangement.

Significantly, the order does not adjudicate the allegation nor does it hold the petitioner responsible for alleged discrepancy. The mere fact that the administrative order takes note of complaints and allegations cannot by itself render the order stigmatic. For an order to be regarded as stigmatic, it must contain an adverse finding or an imputation which carries blemish upon the person or entity concerned. No such finding or imputation is contained in the impugned order. On the contrary, the impugned order proceeds on the consideration of ensuing proper, transparent and uninterrupted distribution of PDS commodities.

9. Therefore, the use of word “transparent” cannot be concluded as a decided fact that the activities of the petitioner were not transparent.

10. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands dismissed, however, the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate and take all his defence, if any enquiry is conducted.

11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant