Calcutta High Court
Madan Lal Agarwal vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 15 September, 2009
Author: Maharaj Sinha
Bench: Maharaj Sinha
WP No. 820 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ORIGINAL SIDE
MADAN LAL AGARWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA
Date : 15 September 2009.
For the petitioner :-
Mr. R.A.Agarwala,advocate
Ms. Nibedita Pal,advocate
Mr. Ramesh Dhara,advocate
For the State :
Mr. Arun Kumar Deb,advocate
Mr. Krishna Nanda Mukherjee,advocate
The Court :- The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8
May 2009 passed by the Director of Rationing, West Bengal,
upholding the order dated 9 October 2007 in respect of
cancellation of appointment and licence of the petitioner as the
owner of FPS 2702.
According to the petitioner, the concerned respondent
sanctioned huge stock of rice and the shop was not having so much space to store the same and hence, the existing stock of wheat was 2 shifted to a nearby godown for safe custody thereof, being the commodity under Public Distribution System and due information on the selfsame date was given to the concerned respondents by a registered letter, which was received by the concerned respondents, as will appear from the certificate dated 6 August 2007 issued by the Postal Department, being Annexure "p-10" at page 63 of the writ petition.
According to the petitioner, there is no provision under West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System(Maintenance & Control) Order,2003 (in short "2003 Order") for seeking prior permission to store any commodity under PDS and, as such, the licence cannot be cancelled by the concerned respondent, merely upon such allegation and hence, the same should be quashed and the concerned respondents should be directed to restore appointment and licence of the petitioner forthwith.
According to the respondents, the petitioner has taken plea of shifting of wheat to evade liability to account for the shortage in stock of wheat and the alleged shifting was made without prior permission and even the concerned respondents were not informed about the same at the time of their visit to the petitioner's shop. Moreover, the postal receipt, issued by the agent of the postal department was ante-dated.
It is an admitted fact that the petitioner's letter dated 28 May 2007 was received by the concerned respondents through speed 3 post and, as such, the certificate issued by the postal authorities cannot be questioned by the respondents. On the other hand, there is no provision under 2003 Order to seek permission before shifting of PDS stock by the dealer.
According to the provisions contained in paragraph 20(i) of 2003 Order, the dealer is obliged to arrange for storage and sale of adequate quantity of public distribution commodities and in the instant case, there is no allegation that the petitioner did not arrange for storage of adequate quantity of public distribution commodities.
Having heard the submissions of Mr. Agarwala, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukherjee,learned Counsel for the respondents and after going through the averments made in the writ petition and the affidavits filed by the parties, I am of the view that the respondents have issued the impugned orders merely on surmises and the same cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 9 October 2007, Annexure "P-6" to the writ petition, appearing at page 74 and order dated 8 May 2009, Annexure "P-7" appearing at page 121 are hereby set aside.
In view of the order, as above, the 3rd and 4th respondents are directed to restore the petitioner's appointment and licence, since cancelled, within a period of two weeks from the date of 4 communication of the order and to allot the ration articles, as before.
The writ petition is thus disposed of in terms of the above order.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.
(MAHARAJ SINHA,J.) Sandip Chandra Assistant Registrar(Court Recording)