Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Raiganj Flour Mill (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. ) on 1 April, 2015
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
01.04.15
111 Ct. No.29
Sws.M
W.P. 7803 (W) of 2015
(Raiganj Flour Mill (Pvt.) Ltd. & Anr.
vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. )
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya
Mr. Chandrachur Chatterjee
....for the petitioners
Mr. Kishore Dutta
Mr. Sushovan Sengupta
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
....for the State
Sri Debabrata Saha Roy,
learned counsel appears in support of
W.P. No. 7803(W) of 2015. The State-
respondents are represented by Sri
Kishore Dutta, learned counsel with Sri Sushavan Sengupta and Sri Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, learned counsel.
The short grievance of Sri Saha Roy is that by notification dated 5th July, 2014 issued by the Joint Secretary, Food & Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal 80 flour mills/ chakki mills were empanelled with their respective capacities for converting wheat into fortified atta. Sri Saha Roy submits that the petitioner stood empanelled in respect of the 2 district of Uttar Dinajpur with a recorded production capacity of 6.5 Metric ton per hour (MT/Hr.).
However, Sri Saha Roy contends that by order of the District Controller (Food & Supplies), Uttar Dinajpur dated 17th October, 2014, the petitioner was only allocated a production capacity of 1 MT/Hr. Learned counsel strenuously argues that such reduction in the production capacity is arbitrary.
Challenging the said reduction, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court which was heard at the interim stage by an Hon'ble Single Bench. By order dated 4th March, 2015 in W.P. No. 5719(W) of 2015, the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to come to the prima facie opinion that the reduction of the production capacity is arbitrary. Accordingly, the appropriate respondent, being the respondent No. 7 in the said writ petition, was directed to produce the relevant records. 3
Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench (supra), learned advocate for the petitioner was forwarded certain documents on behalf of the State-respondents by a letter of their learned advocate. In view of the said documents forwarded vide letter dated 25th March, 2015 appearing at page 66 of the present writ petition, W.P. No. 5719(W) of 2015 was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
Hence the present writ petition. Sri Kishore Dutta, learned State counsel draws the attention of this Court to page 77 of the present writ petition. From page 77 it transpires that the agreement with the petitioner was terminated in respect of preparation of fortified atta due to violation of its relevant clauses. In addition, the video recording does not corroborate the packaging capacity of the petitioner as mentioned in the original allotment report.
4
However, the authority decided to allot a capacity of 1.0 MT/Hr. for the petitioner to commence the conversion.
Sri Saha Roy emphasizes that the terms of the original notification dated 5th July, 2014 (supra) allotting the petitioner 6.5 MT/Hr. should be strictly adhered to. The said notification was issued after due deliberation by the competent tendering committee.
However, this Court notices paragraph 3 of the said notification dated 5th July, 2014.
"3. However, it is once again reiterated and clarified that mere empanelment of the flour mills/chakki mills by itself would not lead to any claim by any flour mill/chakki mill as entitlement for allotment of wheat to the concerned mill. The allotment of wheat to a mill shall be done as per future decision of the Department based existing regulations and 5 guidelines (both Central and State) on the need for distribution of flour from time to time in terms of No. 197-FS dated 24/01/2014."
This Court also notices that the factual exercise pertaining to the effective production capacity of the petitioner did not corroborate the empanelled capacity.
Since, such factual exercise is not within the domain of the Writ Court, it is appropriate to direct the State- respondents to conduct a fresh inspection by the competent authority to establish the true effective production capacity of the petitioner. Pending conclusion of such exercise the provisional allotment of 1.0 MT/Hr. in favour of the petitioner shall continue and the petitioner shall be entitled to execute the agreement without prejudice to his rights.
6
It is made abundantly clear that such exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from date. During such inspection by the competent authority the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being represented.
It is also made clear that since the agreement to be executed between the parties to carry further the process of empanelment is pending for a long time, in default of conducting the exercise as directed above within the period specified above, the effective production capacity of the petitioner as specified by the notification dated 5th July, 2014 shall stand to be treated as valid.
W.P. No. 7803(W) of 2015 stands accordingly disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be 7 supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)