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 22]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Prodip Kumar Sinha & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 July, 2015

Author: Subrata Talukdar

Bench: Subrata Talukdar

                                   1



06.07.2015
   253
   b.r

                              W.P. 11465(W) of 2015



                          Prodip Kumar Sinha & Ors.
                                       -vs-
                          The State of West Bengal & Ors.


                   Ms. Chandrayee Alam,
                   Ms. Runu Mukherjee,
                                      .......... For the petitioners.

                   Mr. Kishore Datta, Sr. Adv.
                   Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
                                        .......... For the State.




                   In this writ application the petitioners have applied for

             fair price dealership in response to an advertisement inviting

             applications dated 24th January, 2014. Such advertisement

             were issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and

             Supplies, Islampur.



                   Smt.   Chandrayee    Alam,   learned   counsel   for   the

             petitioners submits that the petitioners are aggrieved by the

             changes made in the eligibility criteria during pendency of

             their applications, by which the area specified for the godown
                       2


as well as the financial capability of the intending parties were

enhanced.



        Sri Kishore Datta, learned Senior Counsel appears for

the State-respondents and submits that the issue has been

settled by the judgement and order passed by an Hon'ble Single Bench dated 10th April, 2015.

The Hon'ble Single Bench found no defect in the powers delegated to the State of West Bengal to issue the Government Orders in question dated 21st July, 2014. The Hon'ble Single Bench further found that the two Government Orders were issued for supplementing the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013.

The Hon'ble Single Bench, after a detailed discussion, also found that the pending applicants did not acquire any vested right to be finally selected in terms of the provisions of the vacancies advertised earlier to the two Government Orders dated 21st July, 2014. Holding that the new rules have been framed by the State Government in discharge of its legislative action by delegation, the Hon'ble Single Bench was of the view 3 that the pending applicants must act in conformity with the terms and conditions imposed by the circulars dated 21st July, 2014.

However, with respect to the condition No.1 imposed by the circulars dated 21st July, 2014 of maintaining a bank balance of Rs. 5,00,000/- as working capital as reflected on the date of the application and one year preceding the date of the application, the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to direct the State-respondents not to impose such condition and time was extended for submitting fresh revised documents.

Sri Datta, learned State counsel submits that in the event the petitioners are found to comply with the new terms and conditions introduced by the circular dated 21st July, 2014 their cases may be directed to be processed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the State-respondents being the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are directed to complete the process of selection of fair price dealerships claimed by the petitioners in accordance with law and taking notice of the direction of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 10th April, 2015 regarding Condition No.1 of the circular dated 21st July, 2014 (supra) 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The respondents nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 shall fulfill their respective obligations under the law and take a final decision within the period as directed above.

Since no affidavit-in-opposition is used the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.

Smt. Alam, learned counsel agrees to put in the deficit court fees in the course of tomorrow.

W.P. No. 11465(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, will be made available to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Subrata Talukdar, J) 5