WP(C) 2763/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE T.VAIPHEI Heard Mr. A.D.Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sarma, lear ned counsel appearing for the State respondents. The legality of the action of the respondents in discontinuing the benefits of public distribution systems (PDS) granted to the petitioners, who have been identified as persons of BPL Identity Card holders, is under chall enge in this writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that they have already been issue d Special Family Identity Card under Antyodaya Anna Yojana (for short ’AAY’) mea nt for them. In this AAY scheme, the petitioners are entitled amongst others for quota of rice at special and subsidized price. The petitioners have been availi ng of the special benefit under the aforesaid schemes for essential commoditie s and such benefits have been rejected by them through the Public Distribution S ystem till the month of April, 2010, when the same was discontinued w.e.f. May, 2010. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that t his discontinuation is without any valid reason and without affording any opport unity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. Hence, t he petitioners are now approaching this court seeking appropriate relief. The State respondents have filed their affidavit in opposition. At para 3 of the affidavit in opposition they have admitted that except for the petitioner No. 16, the remaining petitioners have been found to be eligible for the BPL and AAY scheme and that action has been taken against the errying F.P. Shop dealers for not issuing BPL/AAY rice to the deserving beneficiaries like th e petitioners. As the admission made by the State respondents in Para-3 of the a ffidavit in opposition are important and are being made the foundation of the re lief granted by this court, the same are reproduced below:- That with regard to the statements made in Paragraph No.1, of the writ petitio n, the deponent admitted the fact and begs to state that the petitioners were be neficiaries under the BPL and AAY scheme. But during a preliminary verification conducted under the supervision of concerning Revenue Circle Officer under the provision of the Public Distribution System Control Order, 2001 and as per instr uction communicated from the Director, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs , Assam, Guwahati vide No. DS.144/2009/5 dated 03.11.2009 except the petitioner beneficiaries at Sl. 5, 17, 19 and 20 the rest of the petitioners at Sl.No.1 to 4, 6 to 16, 18 & 21 to 27 were found ineligible to be under BPL and AAY Scheme. Pending a final and thorough verification by the Concerning Circle Officers, the issuance of BPL and AAY Rice to the beneficiaries at Sl.No. 1 to 4, 6 to 16, 1 8 & 21 to 27 were held up temporarily and the quantum of PDS items to tbe issued against those beneficiaries were kept in reserve for necessary distribution to eligible beneficiaries in due course, either the petitioners if found actually e ligible or new beneficiaries to be selected against the petitioners if found act ually ineligible. However, the beneficiaries at Sl. No. 5, 17, 19 and 20 were no t issued BPL or AAY Rice by the concerning F.P.Shop dealers due to some communic ation gap, though they were not found ineligible at the preliminary verification . Action has been taken against the erring F.P.Shop dealers for not issuing BPL /AAY Rice to the deserving above beneficiaries. Subsequently, during the time of re-verification, the petitioner at Sl.No.16 only was found to be not eligible t o receive the benefit of BPL/AAY Scheme as because his son is a Govt. servant ha ving a monthly salary and they are joint family. The rest of the petitioners at Sl.No. 1 to 4, 6 to 15, 18 and 21 to 27 initially held as ineligible were subseq uently found to be actually eligible . In my considered opinion, on the face of the admission made by the State respon dents, this writ petition, except in the case of the petitioner No.16, does not survive for consideration. Except for the petitioner No.16, all the petitioners are found entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is partly allowed by directi ng the State respondents to restore the benefits granted earlier to all the pet itioners except the petitioner No.16 under the BPL and AAY schemes within a peri od of 3(three) weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this ord er. No costs.