Sharif-Ud-Din vs Abdul Gani Lone on 12 November, 1979
29. The period of 30 days mentioned in the proviso to paragraph 9 of the
Control Order within which an order is required to be passed cannot be
held to be mandatory, since the provision itself does not lay down any
consequence should no order be passed within such period. The decision
reported in 2006 (3) CHN 655 (Md. Yeasin & ors. v. State of West Bengal &
ors.) rendered by another Division Bench of this Court may be referred to
in this regard. It was a writ appeal that was being considered. The writ
petition arose out of the West Bengal Public Distribution System
(Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003. It was held there, upon
consideration of various authorities on the point, by Hon'ble Asok Kumr
Ganguly, J. (as His Lordship then was) that the period of three months
from date of service of notice seeking explanation, within which
departmental proceedings drawn against a dealer were to be completed
(appearing in paragraph 21), was not mandatory. One may also refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1980 SC 303 (Sharif Ud-Din
v. Abdul Gani) wherein it was held that whenever a statute prescribes a
particular act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down the
specific consequence that would follow a failure to comply with the
requirement, such a provision should be construed as mandatory if the
consequences are mentioned. There are also other decisions of the
Supreme Court on the point, which require to be noticed.