Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ibrahim Ali Sarkar & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 22 January, 2014

Author: Sanjib Banerjee

Bench: Sanjib Banerjee

                                   1



41   22.01.2014

                                W.P. 1654 (W) of 2014
     gd
                              Ibrahim Ali Sarkar & Anr.
                                           Vs.
                               State of West Bengal & Ors.

                         Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
                         Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya
                                   ..for the Petitioners

                         Mr. Susovan Sengupta
                                  ..for the State


                        The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the

                  second petitioner's name being recommended by the

                  appropriate authorities for transfer of the fair price

                  shop licence now standing in the name of the first

                  petitioner father in view of the incapacitation of the

                  father, a vacancy is about to be declared pursuant to

                  the   impugned       order   and   the   second   petitioner's

                  application for transfer rejected.

                        The State says that certain queries were raised as

                  would appear from the document dated March 30,

                  2011, appearing at "P-6" to the petition and they have

                  not been answered. The State says that merely because

                  an application is made or it is recommended by some

                  junior officials does not imply that the recommendation
                 2


becomes binding without the final licensing authority

having a say in the transfer or refusal thereof.

      Notwithstanding the submission of the State,

since it is evident that the application has, in effect,

been rejected by the order impugned dated December

31, 2013, a copy whereof is annexed as annexure "P-7"

to the petition, such decision is set aside to the extent

it pertains to the petitioners. The respondent No.3 is

directed to consider the application in accordance with law and, if the second petitioner complies with all conditions and is eligible to obtain the transfer, necessary decision in such regard should be taken as expeditiously as possible. Whether the application is allowed or rejected, such decision should be communicated to the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from date. If the application is declined, due reasons in support of such decision should be communicated within the same period.

W.P. 1654 (W) of 2014 is allowed as above without any order as to costs.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities. 3 (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 4