HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND S.K. SINHA, JJ.
Rajesh Dhanuka - Appellants
Vs
State Of West Bengal - Respondents
Decided on: May 19, 2011
WEST BENGAL PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - APPOINTMENT OF DISTRIBUTOR - ENQUIRY REPORT - VALIDITY - WEST BENGAL PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL) ORDER, 2003 - CLAUSE 23.
Fact of the Case:
A writ petition was filed challenging the appointment of a distributor for a fair price shop in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The petitioner contended that the appointment was made in violation of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (the 2003 Control Order). The Single Judge set aside the appointment and the distributor appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appointment of the distributor was made in violation of the 2003 Control Order. The Court found that the initial enquiry report was not a report by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supply) (SCFS) as required by the 2003 Control Order. The Court also found that the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply (DDP and S) had erred in directing the SCFS to make a second enquiry, as the 2003 Control Order only permitted the Director to direct an enquiry by a competent officer or a team in case of disagreement with the report of the SCFS or the District Controller (Food and Supply) (DCFS). The Court further found that the third enquiry report was made by the Deputy Director with the assistance of another officer, which was not permissible under the 2003 Control Order. The Court also held that the Minister-in-Charge was not involved in the decision-making process and that the complaint made before him was properly directed to the DDP and S for enquiry.
Issues: Whether the appointment of the distributor was made in violation of the 2003 Control Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the appointment of the distributor was made in violation of the 2003 Control Order. The Court found that the initial enquiry report was not a report by the SCFS as required by the 2003 Control Order. The Court also found that the Director, DDP and S had erred in directing the SCFS to make a second enquiry, as the 2003 Control Order only permitted the Director to direct an enquiry by a competent officer or a team in case of disagreement with the report of the SCFS or the DCFS. The Court further found that the third enquiry report was made by the Deputy Director with the assistance of another officer, which was not permissible under the 2003 Control Order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the Single Judge setting aside the appointment of the distributor.
Ghose, J.
1. THESE three appeals have been filed against a common judgment and/or order dated 20th June, 2008 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge disposing three writ petitions being W.P. No. 45 of 2007, W.P. No. 489 of 2007 as well as G.A. No. 252 of 2007.
2. IN the said judgment, His Lordship was pleased to set aside the Third Enquiry Report dated 28th November, 2006 and further directed that the appointment letter and the licence issued in favour of the private respondent Jugal Kishore Sanghai, were set aside.
The facts of the case briefly are as follows:-
Pursuant to a vacancy declared for appointment of a M.R. Distributor at Assam More, Jalpaiguri, applications were invited. Accordingly applications were received by the authority. An enquiry was held by a committee led by the Chief Inspector and on the basis of an Enquiry Report of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply (hereinafter referred as the 'SCFS') a panel was prepared of three applicants. The said report was sent to the District Controller, Food and Supply ('DCFS') and the same was placed before the Directorate of District Distribution, Procurement and Supply (hereinafter referred to as the 'DDP and S). The Director, DDP and S directed re-enquiry by the SCFS and upon re-enquiry; a report was submitted by SCFS on 10th October, 2006. The Second Report was forwarded to the office of the DDP and S and the DDP and S, in the absence of any finding regarding loading and unloading facility and categorical recommendation of any particular candidate, ordered re-enquiry in respect of all applications. On the basis of the said direction a notice was issued and enquiry held. Pursuant to such enquiry a third enquiry report was submitted recommending Jugal Kishore Sanghai as a M.R. Distributor. The same was forwarded to the DDP and S and on the basis of such recommendation made on 17th January, 2007 approval was granted. On 18th January, 2007 an appointment letter issued in his favour. Thereafter, a licence was granted in favour of Jugal Kishore Sanghai.
3. THE challenge was thrown that the said selection process is contrary to the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the 2003 Control Order.'
4. A writ petition was moved by one Rajesh Dhanuka praying for cancellation of the appointment and licence of Jugal Kishore Sanghai. Sunil Saha made an application for addition of party in the said writ petition filed by the Rajesh Dhanuka. Subsequently, on 17th April, 2007, Sunil Saha also filed a writ petition challenging and praying for cancellation of such appointment.
Both the writ petitions of Rajesh Dhanuka and Sunil Saha and connected application were disposed of by a common judgment by the learned Single Judge holding that the enquiry report dated 28th November, 2006 cannot be sustained and there is no infirmity in the appointment of Mr. Ahsan to enquire into the matter and appointment letter and licence granted in favour of Jugal Kishore Sanghai were set aside.
5. BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order Rajesh Dhanuka preferred the appeal challenging that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the appellant has challenged only the third enquiry report and thereby erred in not directing to conduct a fresh enquiry. After setting aside of the third enquiry report despite holding that there is no infirmity in the appointment of Mr. H. Ahsan to enquire into the matter.
6. SUNIL Saha preferred an appeal and submitted that in the appeal the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the respondents to issue appointment in his favour upholding the second enquiry report cancelling third enquiry report.
Our attention has been drawn to Clause 23 of a Notification bearing No. 5880-FS which is dated 22nd December, 2003 and published in the Kolkata Gazette dated 28th March, 2005 whereby the amendment was given effect to in respect of appointment, issue of licence and termin
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.