High Court Of Calcutta
Shyamal Kumar Sen
BIRENDRA NATH DE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 2413 Of 1985
Decided On : 05/05/1989
( 1 ) IT is the case of the writ petitioner that he was in Defence Service for 21 years from March 28, 1961 till he retired on March 31, 1982. Under the re-settlement of retired army personnel scheme the petitioner applied in the month of October 1981 for allotment of a Mother Dairy booth to him. In or about the month of January, 1982 the Director General of Re-settlement, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi gave the petitioner an interview and the petitioner was asked to see the Regional Director of the said Directorate at Eastern Zone in Fort William. Thereafter the petitioner met the Regional Director and the petitioner was asked to contact the Mother Dairy authorities. The petitioner contacted the Mother Dairy authorities accordingly and by a letter dated May 5, 1982 the petitioner was appointed Concessionaire for Mini Dairy with effect from May 7, 1982 and the petitioner was directed to deposit security money and comply with necessary formalities. In fact the petitioner was appointed Concessionaire in respect of the Mini Dairy outlet which was numbered as 018 and which has subsequently been changed to No. 216. The said Mini Dairy outlet is situated at 'j' Block, New Alipore, Calcutta-53. The work the petitioner has to do as Concessionaire is to supply milk to the local people of the area in which the petitioner's Milk Dairy is situated. The Mother Dairy authorities will supply requisite quota of milk daily and will fill the tank which is installed in the said Mini Dairy outlet. The customers who would come to collect the milk of Mother Dairy will have to drop a token which they will have to purchase against cash payment for their milk. Then after the dropping of the token, milk will come out from the machine which is installed in the said booth. It has been further alleged in the petition that since his appointment as Concessionaire in respect of the Mini Dairy Booth the petitioner has been carrying on his business as Concessionaire without any complaint from any quarters. It is the further case of the petitioner that sometimes some frivolous complaints have been made against the petitioner but the petitioner has all the time satisfied the authorities about the due discharge of his duties as a Concessionaire since 1982. The petitioner had to execute an agreement with the Mother Dairy authorities in respect of his appointment as Concessionaire. Such agreement is renewable at every six months. It has been alleged in the petition that when milk is supplied to the outlet of the petitioner there is no scope to check the quality of milk supplied by the said Mother Dairy authority. No test is made when the milk is filled in the tank from where milk is supplied to various customers. No sample is given to the petitioner about the standard of milk. But as soon as the milk is filled in the tank the petitioner has to sign a certificate about the standard of milk and about its fat content and other various properties of the milk. Such certificate has to be signed by the petitioner without ascertaining the quality of the milk supplied. It has further been alleged in the petition that the petitioner has to supply milk to various customers at the rate of 2 paise commission on sale of one litre of milk at Rs. 3. 40. As such the commission which is given to the petitioner is much less than even 1% of the sale price. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has to carry on with his activities in the said milk booth for very long hours inasmuch as the said milk booth will have to be kept open for long hours throughout the day and for maintenance of the milk booth and also for cleaning the same some more time is required. The petitioner has to remain engaged in the said booth for more than 12 hours in the course of a day and the said booth has to be kept open all the time without any holiday. As such the petitioner found that the remuneration which he receives is far too inadequate for the number of hours
The Manager, Govt Branch Prss and Anr. v. D.B. Belltappa
Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Co.
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojonath Ganguly and Anr.
Olga Tellis and Ors v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ors.
Kishan Chand Arora v. Commissioner of Police Calcutta
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth etc. etc.
Pitam Singh and Ors. v. Union of A India and Ors.
The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines and Anr. v. Ramjee
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.