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 1]

Calcutta High Court

Gour Chandra Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 November, 2008

Author: Aniruddha Bose

Bench: Aniruddha Bose

                          WP No. 1697 of 2008

                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

         Constitutional Writ/Civil Appellate/Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction

                          ORIGINAL SIDE




      GOUR CHANDRA PAL                              Plaintiff/Petitioner/Applicant

          Versus

      THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.               Defendant/Respondent

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE Date : 6th November, 2008.
The Court : The petitioner is an existing agent of kerosene oil having distribution points at Krishnagar, Tehatta and Kalyani in the district of Nadia. His total allocation of kerosene oil per month is 130 KL. The petitioner's apprehension is that the respondents would curtail his total allocation for the subdivisions Tehatta and Kalyani. It is submitted by Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that it would leave the petitioner with allocation of only 70 KL in respect of his agency.
Learned counsel for the State submits that such curtailment is taking place for administrative reasons and in pursuance of a policy decision. However, no such reason or policy has been shown before me when the matter was heard. This Court would be reluctant to interfere with the policy decision of the government in the field of public distribution system, but then such policy has to be framed on a rational and reasonable basis. At this stage, there is no material before me from which it can be gathered that any such policy has been formulated.
2
Under these circumstances, let the allocation to the petitioner be retained at the level it was in the month of October 2008 for the month of November 2008 as well. Learned advocate for the respondents wants two weeks' time to file the affidavit in opposition in which he wants to disclose the reason as to why allocation to the petitioner is sought to be reduced. Let affidavit in opposition be filed within two weeks. Reply thereto may be filed within one week thereafter. Let the matter appear three weeks hence at the top of the list.
All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertakings.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) tk