Pending criminal proceedings do not bar departmental action under the Assam Public Distribution Articles Order.

The 17 petitioners were ration-card holders/beneficiaries of a fair price shop operated by respondent no. 8 at Tengaguri under Tengaguri Samabai Samiti Limited, Morigaon.

The fair price shop licence was suspended on 30.04.2024 for alleged misappropriation of 4.45 quintals of rice, and a show-cause notice was subsequently issued on 09.12.2024, to which respondent no. 8 replied.

The petitioners lodged online complaints before the Deputy Commissioner on 14.07.2024, and petitioner no. 2 also lodged an ejahar, pursuant to which respondent no. 8 was arrested.

An inquiry was conducted by the Co-District Commissioner, culminating in an inquiry report dated 03.02.2025; however, the petitioners alleged that no consequential action was taken thereafter.

Respondent no. 8 was later reinstated and warned by order dated 20.08.2025 in another departmental proceeding.

The petitioners therefore invoked Article 226 seeking appropriate action on the inquiry report and their allegations.

Respondent no. 8 objected to maintainability, contending that only petitioner nos. 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were existing consumers of the fair price shop.

1. Whether the departmental action and warning issued on 20.08.2025 constituted consequential action on the allegations and inquiry report arising from the petitioners’ complaints?

2. Whether departmental proceedings under the Assam Public Distribution Articles Order, 1982 could continue despite the pendency of a police case concerning the same allegations?

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable at least at the instance of the petitioners who were existing consumers of respondent no. 8’s fair price shop?

4. Whether the respondent authorities were required to consider the inquiry report dated 03.02.2025 and bring the proceeding to a lawful conclusion?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review alleged administrative inaction and to issue a direction for performance of a public/statutory duty.

It applied Clause 15(1) and Clause 15(2) of the Assam Public Distribution Articles Order, 1982, under which departmental action, including suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop licence, is distinct from criminal proceedings and may be taken independently even while a police case or criminal trial is pending.

The Court also applied the principle that administrative proceedings must be brought to a logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure established by law, while recognising that locus and maintainability objections may limit the relief available to particular petitioners without necessarily defeating the entire writ petition.

The Court distinguished the warning issued on 20.08.2025 from the action sought by the petitioners.

Although the warning concerned alleged misappropriation of 4.45 quintals of rice and might have involved similar facts, the Court found prima facie that it was not a decision on the specific allegations raised by the petitioners, particularly those connected with the pending police case.

The State’s affidavit expressly clarified that proceedings under Clauses 15(1) and 15(2) of the 1982 Order had no relation to the criminal complaint or trial and that the pendency of criminal proceedings did not bar suspension or cancellation of the licence.

Since the petitioners’ complaints had already resulted in an inquiry report dated 03.02.2025, the authorities were under an obligation to consider that report and take consequential action in accordance with law rather than leave the matter unresolved.

As to maintainability, the Court accepted that only petitioner nos. 6, 14, 15, 16 and 17 were existing consumers, but held that this objection did not defeat the writ petition in its entirety because the petition remained maintainable at least on their behalf.

It further held that the pending police case did not bar departmental action under the Assam Public Distribution Articles Order, 1982.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the inquiry report dated 03.02.2025 and bring the proceeding to a logical conclusion, strictly following the procedure established by law.

No order was made as to costs.