Calcutta High Court
Gulzar Ahmed Khan vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 15 January, 2015
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 1205 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GULZAR AHMED KHAN
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 15th January, 2015.
Mr. P.S. Bhattacharyya, Mr. Raju Bhattaharyya, Mr. Arunava Maiti, Advs.
...for the petitioner Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Adv.
...for the State The Court : The challenge in the writ petition is the order dated September 5, 2014 passed by the Director of Consumer Goods.
Learned counsel for the writ petitioner refers to my order dated August 12, 2014 which required the Authorities to consider the representation and to dispose of the same by a reasoned order after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner that, few observations made in the order impugned are such that it would affect the substantive rights of the writ petitioner in any proceeding that may be initiated for adjudication of the title dispute amongst the contesting parties. Learned counsel also submits that, the adjudicating authority erred in law in appreciating the various provisions of the Indian 2 Partnership Act so far as it relates to the right of a partner in an unregistered partnership firm. The adjudicating authority has returned a finding that a partnership firm is registered while in fact it is not so.
I have considered the order impugned as well as the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner and the materials made available on record.
As the Writ Court I am to interfere with the order impugned to if there is flaw in the decision making process and when the order impugned is against public policy or perverse. In the instant case I find no such ground for me to interfere with the order impugned exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Essentially by the impugned order, the adjudicating authority found on the facts placed before him that there is a title dispute amongst various parties before it as to the entitlement of the licence. The adjudicating authority found conflict in the title of the parties before it. In view of the conflict of title amongst the parties before it, the adjudicating authority refused to renew the licence in favour of the writ petitioner. There is no material irregularity in the finding returned by the adjudicating authority.
However for the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to clarify that the observations made by the adjudicating authority and the findings returned by it in the order impugned will not prevent the parties from having the right, title and interest of the respective parties adjudicated by a forum of competent jurisdiction. 3
With the aforesaid observations, W.P. 1205 of 2014 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) TR/