Calcutta High Court
M/S. Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj & Ors vs Ranjit Kumar Murmu & Ors on 16 September, 2009
GA No. 2591 of 2009
APOT No. 367 of 2009 with
W.P. No. 899 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S. LACHMI NARAYAN BHOMROJ & ORS. Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
RANJIT KUMAR MURMU & ORS. Defendant/Respondent
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Mr. Sagar Bandhopadhyay, Mr. Timir Baran Saha, Mr. Shamit Sanyal, Mr. Sanjay Kr. Ghosh, Advs.
......... for the Appellant Mr. R.A. Agarwala, Mrs. A. Pal, Mr. R.Dhara, Advs.
...... for the Respondent no. 1 Mr. Arun Kr. Deb, Mr.Dipak Das, Advs, ...... for the State respondent BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE Date : 16th September, 2009.
The Court : The problem arose when the original allottee died leaving behind his surviving heirs who applied for mutation of the kerosene licence. After the death the licence was suspended enabling the heirs to apply for mutation and a temporary tagging was made with the writ petitioner/respondent to avoid hardship which the general public may suffer. The appellants being the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased allottee and/or licensee brought their names substituted and a new licence has been 2 issued in favour of the heirs. The problem arose when to implement such allotment, the respondent no. 1 was detagged. The respondent approached the Learned Single Judge on the plea that such detagging was made on a mere telephonic instruction received by the District Controller from its subordinate authority. The Learned Judge allowed the appellants to be added as a party in the writ petition. After adding the appellants as party respondent in the writ petition His Lordship set aside the decision of the Authority and restored the supply in respect of the private respondent for the month of August as per the earlier month. His Lordship also directed the Joint Director of Consumer Goods, Government of West Bengal to give personal hearing to the concerned parties, and take a reasoned decision in the matter.
We have considered the judgment and order of His Lordship. We have heard Mr. D. Saha Roy, Mr. R.A. Agarwala and Mr. Arun Kr. Deb for the State. Mr. Saha Roy submits that once the licence was renewed and new licence was issued to the legal heirs of the original allottee, they were entitled to have restoration of allotment. Mr. R.A. Agarwala submits that detagging should have been made upon passing an appropriate order. Mr. Saha Roy points out at page 127 of the stay petition by which the Oil company restored the original allotment in favour of the appellant.
Such allotment should not have prejudiced the private respondent without giving them adequate notice and without giving them hearing. The Learned Single Judge rightly approached the problem. We however feel that in stead of Joint Director, the District Magistrate, Purulia being the Authority under the Kerosene Control Order particularly Clause 11 should hear all the concerned parties and pass appropriate order in the matter as directed by His Lordship. Such decision must be taken within a period of fortnight from date.
Joint Director already called a meeting in terms of the earlier order. Such meeting may not be held in view of our order passed today. 3
It is abundantly made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and the parties would be at liberty to place their respective applications before the District Magistrate who would pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been called for, the allegations contained in the stay petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted by the respondents.
The appeal and the application are disposed of without any order as to costs.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities by tomorrow.
(BANERJEE, J.) (KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, J.) TR/