Authorities must independently and lawfully reconsider disproportionate delinking of ration cards from existing FPS dealers.

The writ petition concerned the tagging and detagging of ration cards among Fair Price Shops (“FPSs”). Pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated 31 August 2026, the State respondents filed a report explaining the number of cards proposed to be allotted to the private respondent and the number to be retained by the existing FPS dealers.

The report stated that 3,074 ration cards were proposed to be tagged in favour of the private respondent, comprising 2,679 cards delinked from the petitioner Ajoy Kumar Ghosh’s FPS and 395 cards delinked from the FPS of Rudrapratap Nag.

It further recorded that 5,330 cards would be retained by the petitioner and 6,277 cards by Rudrapratap Nag.

The petitioner objected that substantially more cards had been detagged from his FPS than from Rudrapratap Nag’s FPS.

The State contended that the tagging and detagging had been undertaken in accordance with the dynamic nature of the DRC database system and involved no illegality or irregularity.

Whether the proposed tagging of 3,074 ration cards in favour of the private respondent could be implemented on the basis of the State respondents’ report.

Whether the disparity in the number of ration cards proposed to be delinked from the FPSs of Ajoy Kumar Ghosh and Rudrapratap Nag required an independent reconsideration by the competent authority.

Whether the tagging and detagging exercise was to remain subject to the outcome of the pending appeals before the Division Bench.

The Court applied the principles of lawful and reasoned administrative decision-making, requiring the competent authority to independently examine an apparent disparity in the treatment of similarly situated FPS dealers and arrive at a logical and conclusive decision in accordance with law.

It also recognised the State’s submission that ration-card tagging and detagging operated through the dynamic DRC database system.

The Court further directed that administrative action concerning the ration cards would abide by the result of the connected appeals pending before the Division Bench.

The Court accepted that the State had already taken a decision to tag 3,074 ration cards in favour of the private respondent and therefore directed that those cards be tagged within seven days.

However, the figures disclosed an apparent disparity: 2,679 cards were proposed to be delinked from the petitioner’s FPS, whereas only 395 cards were proposed to be delinked from Rudrapratap Nag’s FPS.

Without finally determining whether the disparity was unlawful, the Court required respondent no. 5 to reconsider the matter independently, without being influenced by the Court’s observations, and to reach a logical and conclusive finding in accordance with law.

The Court also preserved the effect of the pending appellate proceedings by making the entire tagging and detagging exercise subject to their outcome.

The tagging and detagging of ration cards was expressly made subject to the result of the pending Division Bench appeals.

WPA 1464 of 2025 and the connected application were accordingly disposed of.

Since affidavits had not been called for, the allegations in the writ petition were treated as denied and not admitted.