Rejection of Fair Price Shop Allotment to Legal Heir Without Reasoning Is Arbitrary and Requires Fresh Consideration

The petitioner’s mother, Late Anita Debnath, was the dealer of Ishanpur Fair Price Shop (FPS) No. 2 from 2015 until her death on 02.01.2026

Following her death, the petitioner applied for the dealership as a legal heir, citing a government policy providing preference to legal heirs

Instead of granting the request, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Mohanpur, tagged the shop with another dealer and subsequently rejected the petitioner’s claim via an order dated 07.04.2026 without providing detailed reasoning

The petitioner previously approached the High Court in WP(C) No. 102 of 2026, where the Court directed the respondents to consider her case in accordance with law; the current petition challenges the subsequent rejection

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application for FPS dealership allotment as a legal heir was arbitrary and passed in violation of the state’s binding policy

2. Whether the respondents were required to pass a speaking order specifically addressing the eligibility and disqualification criteria regarding family members in government service

The case is governed by the executive guidelines and policy decisions of the Government of Tripura, specifically the Memorandum dated 20.04.2005 and the Memorandum dated 04.12.2006, which establish the framework for FPS dealership allotment and provide preference to legal heirs of deceased dealers subject to suitability

The Court also noted administrative law principles requiring authorities to exercise discretion reasonably and provide non-arbitrary, reasoned decisions when evaluating statutory or policy-based claims

The Court observed that while FPS dealership is not an automatic "matter of right" or inheritance, administrative discretion must be exercised within the bounds of existing government policy

The Court found that the respondents failed to issue a reasoned order in light of the 2005 and 2006 Memoranda

Specifically, the impugned order and counter-affidavit were silent on why the petitioner was disqualified and failed to clarify the "ambiguity" regarding whether having family members in government service constituted a legal disqualification for the petitioner

The Court determined that the rejection was non-speaking and arbitrary because it did not address the specific preferential claims or the alleged disqualifications in a transparent manner

The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s case afresh and pass a detailed, speaking order in accordance with law; the respondents are required to specifically address the grounds for any denial and communicate the decision to all parties, who remain at liberty to challenge any fresh determination; all pending applications and stays were vacated