Pranab Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 May, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Pranab Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 May, 2010

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

                                        1




                         In the High Court at Calcutta
                        Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                 Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.

                          W.P. No. 27618 (W) of 2008
                             Pranab Kumar Ghosh
                                      v.
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr Biswajit Banerjee, advocate, for the petitioner. Ms Kanika Gupta and Ms
Shibani Bhagat, advocates, for the state.

Heard on: May 5, 2010.

Judgment on: May 5, 2010.

      The Court: - The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated November 6, 2008
is seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to grant a licence

authorising him to carry on trade in kerosene as a dealer.

Licence authorising one to carry on trade in kerosene as a dealer is granted under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, para.6, which is quoted below:

"6. Grant of licence to dealer.--(1) The Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may grant a licence to any person authorizing such person to carry on trade in kerosene as a dealer.

(2) A licence granted under sub-paragraph (1) shall be in Form B and shall be subject to such conditions as are specified therein and such other conditions as the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may impose from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene."

The petitioner submitted an application dated January 12, 2007 requesting the District Magistrate, Purulia to grant him a licence. Consequently the district magistrate directed necessary inquiry. The case was not recommended by the Area Inspector and the Sub-divisional Controller, (Food & Supplies). Some other persons also applied for licence to carry on trade in kerosene as dealer from the same place. Cases of two persons were recommended.

During pendency of the applications the Food Commissioner & Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Food & Supplies issued an order dated November 19, 2007 that vacancy for a dealer for an area should be declared and notified inviting application, and that the selection should be made following the procedure mentioned in the order. Under the circumstances, the respondents decided not to proceed further with the pending applications.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner, contending that as the best among who applied he acquired a right to consideration, brought this petition.

Mr Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner, has argued that citing the government order dated November 19, 2007, issued long after the petitioner applied for grant of licence under para.6 of the control order, the respondents could not abandon the process in which the petitioner's case was being considered. According to him, the respondents, some of whom arbitrarily refused to recommend the petitioner's case, are under an obligation to consider the petitioner's application for grant of licence.

Ms Gupta, counsel for the state, submits that in the face of the government order dated November 19, 2007 the petitioner is not entitled to claim a right to grant of a licence to carry on trade in kerosene from the place mentioned in his application, because vacancy for the place has not been declared and notified giving opportunity to all eligible persons to apply for the dealership.

In my opinion, the district magistrate did not commit any wrong by deciding not to proceed further with the petitioner's application for grant of a licence under para.6 of the control order. It is evident from the order dated November 19, 2007 that the government laid down the procedure for appointment of a dealer in the public interest involved in equitable distribution and supply of kerosene through dealers and fair price shop owners.

The petitioner's own case, as is evident from his application dated January 12, 2007, is that kerosene is not easily available. By submitting the application he did not acquire a vested right to consideration. The legal right to consideration that he acquired cannot override the public interest in which the order dated November 19, 2007 was issued. It is to be noted that he submitted a fresh application, in prescribed form, dated December 2, 2007. It amounted to conscious waiver of the right.

For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)