Calcutta High Court
Samarendra Nath Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 May, 2011
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
ORIGINAL SIDE
W.P. No. 361 of 2011
Samarendra Nath Ghosh
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
CORAM : The Hon'ble Justice Mr. Tapen Sen
For the Petitioners : Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Advocate
Mr. R.A. Agarwal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. M.M. Das, Advocate
Ms. Tanushree Pal Chowdhury, Advocate
Heard On : 29.3.11, 28.4.11, 5.5.11
C.A.V. on : 5.5.2011
Judgment Delivered on : 18th May, 2011
Tapen Sen, J.: The Petitioner prays for an Order commanding upon the
Respondents to withdraw and cancel the Order dated 28.2.2005 (Annexure- P/2);
the Order dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure-P/3); and the Order dated 24.5.2005 (Annexure- P/5). By reason of the Order dated 28.2.2005, the Director of Consumer Goods, Government of West Bengal issued a show-cause-cum- suspension Order whereby and whereunder, and on the basis of allegations contained therein, he proceeded to suspend the SK Oil Licence No. CG/K. Oil/Sham/89/478 of the Petitioner's Firm being M/s. Balaram Bhandar and also 2 directed the dealer to appear with reply to the said show cause notice for a personal hearing.
2. By reason of the Order dated 2.3.2005, the Director of Consumer Goods directed the Petitioner to appear before him on 7.3.2005 with his reply in relation to the allegations contained therein.
3. By reason of the Order dated 24.3.2005 as contained in Annexure- P/5, the Director of Consumer Goods found the Petitioner guilty of all the charges and cancelled his licence which was issued under para-6 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
4. The facts of this case are that the Petitioner was doing business as a kerosene oil dealer under the name and style of M/s. Balaram Bhandar for more than two decades by virtue of the licence referred to above which was issued under the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
5. On the aforementioned dates, i.e. on 28.2.2005, the Show cause-cum-Suspension Order was issued for allegations contained therein and finally, the licence was cancelled by the final Order dated 24.3.2005. The Petitioner appears to have filed a Representation on 18.4.2005 but that was not considered and the Petitioner was told that the Representation cannot be considered by the Director unless the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. According to the Petitioner, he filed an Appeal on 18.4.2005 but by a Memorandum dated 25.8.2005 as contained in Annexure-P/8, the 3 Assistant Director of Consumer Goods informed the Petitioner to submit his Appeal before the Food Commissioner.
6. According to the Petitioner, he had already filed an appeal on 18.4.2005 whereafter he suffered a psychological breakdown and was therefore not in a position to make further appeals but soon after recovery, he filed yet another Appeal on 11.9.2007 and on 17.9.2007, he personally appeared before the Appellate Authority but he was referred to a Joint Secretary who asked him to file a Representation before the Director of Consumer Goods for reconsideration of his case. Thereafter on 21.9.2007, the Petitioner filed such a Representation before the Director of Consumer Goods. In December, 2007, he was asked to submit another Appeal before the Commissioner-cum-Principal Secretary and as a result, he filed yet another Appeal on 21.1.2008 vide Annexure-P/11. Thereafter the Petitioner made several Representations but could not get any relief from any of the authorities and therefore he filed two Representations one before the Director of Consumer Goods and the other before the Commissioner, Food & Supplies on 15.2.2010. Both the Representations are Annexure-P/12. According to the Petitioner, he is running from post to pillar and pillar to post for redressal of his grievances but none of the authorities have considered his case on one pretext or the other. In the meantime, the landlord of the shop has forcibly taken possession taking advantage of the closure of the business of the Petitioner.
7. Mr. Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that a show cause-cum-suspension Order has already 4 been held to be illegal by this Court in the case of Mina Karmakar Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. He submits that therefore all other proceedings taken pursuant to the illegal initiation of the proceedings must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. Mr. Murari Mohan Das, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has submitted that the impugned Orders have been passed in the year 2005 whereas the Writ Petition was filed on 22.3.2011 and therefore, for such gross delay, the Writ Petition cannot proceed.
8. This Court would have accepted the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Respondents but is unable to do so because it notices that the Petitioner repeatedly filed Representations but none of them were looked into. The last Representation that he seems to have filed was sent to the Commissioner, Food & Supplies on 15.2.2010 with a copy to the Director of Consumer Goods in which photocopies of all previous Representations were enclosed. In spite of so many Representations, the authorities kept mum and did not even bother to take up the case of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, the plea of delay raised by Mr. Murari Mohan Das cannot be accepted.
9. Consequently, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the concerned Respondents to consider the Representation of the Petitioner and to pass an Order thereon in accordance with law within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of.
No Order as to costs.
5Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Xeroxed Certified copy of this Judgment, be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.
(Tapen Sen, J.) ............May, 2011 S.B. A.F.R./N.A.F.R.