The authority to conduct an enquiry into the eligibility of an applicant for a distributorship under the West Bengal Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003, lies with the sub-divisional controller in the first instance. The District Controller can only conduct an enquiry if the Director, DDP & S, disagrees with the enquiry report of the sub-divisional controller or the recommendation of the district controller.

Aniruddha Bose, J.

1. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether a district controller, who also happens to hold the rank of Joint Director, Food & Supplies could conduct an enquiry over allegations of non-eligibility of an applicant for a license for distributorship under the provisions of the West Bengal/Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003, (2003 Order) at the instance of the Director, District Distribution, Procurement & Supply, in the absence of any disagreement on the part of the Director either with the enquiry report of the sub-divisional controller or recommendation of the district controller. The distributorship involved in this writ petition is for Jamtala Hat under the police station Kultali in the district of 24 parganas (south). Applications in this regard were invited by a notification published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary dated 21st June, 2011. There has been litigation in the past on appointment to the same distributorship. In an earlier writ petition, (W.P. No. 144 of 2010), Goutam Kumar Saha Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. the issue involved was whether advertisements inviting applications for filling up such vacancies were required to be published in the Official Gazette or not. In that proceeding, the petitioner (who is the second petitioner in this writ petition) had complained that there was no Gazette publication and the notice was published in two local newspapers only. An Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in a judgment delivered on 5th May, 2010, allowed that writ petition holding that notifications in term of Clause 23 of the 2003 Control Order ought to be published in the Official Gazette. Thereafter the aforesaid Gazette publication was made. The writ petitioner no. 1, of which the petitioner no. 2 is a Director, had applied in response to the notice in the prescribed form. Direction for spot enquiry was issued on 5th September, 2011, and the spot enquiry was held on 14th September, 2011, by the sub-divisional controller of the concerned region.

2. The petitioners came to this Court questioning the legal validity of a notice dated 29th December, 2011, and also the report of the District Controller made on 8th February, 2012, in relation to the said enquiry. The notice of 29th December, 2011 was addressed to a learned advocate, Biswanath Charkraborty, and a copy of this letter was marked to the petitioner no. 1. In this notice, originating from the District Controller Food & Supplies, 24 parganas (south) and ex officio Joint Director, it was stipulated:-

“An enquiry will be conducted from this end on 4th January, 2012 at 11 A.M. in connection with your complaint dt. 15.10.2011 at the proposed godown of M/S. Kultali Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd, one of the applicants in persuant to the vacancy notification no. WB(Part-I), 2011/SAR-135 dt. 21.06.2011 published in Kolkata Gazette.

So you are requested to remain present in the same date & time along with pre-requisite papers.”

3. When this writ petition was initially moved, said Biswanath Chakraborty was impleaded as a party respondent, along with various functionaries of the Food & Supplies Department of the State Government. It had been argued on behalf of the petitioners at that stage, the identity of the individual whose interest the said learned advocate was representing was not known to the petitioner. Subsequently, such identity was disclosed and the petitioner came to learn that another applicant for the distributorship, Barun Ghosh had made a complaint over eligibility of the petitioner, and on the basis of such complaint the petitioner, and on the basis of such complaint the enquiry was being directed. By an order passed on 5th March, 2012, said Biswanath Charkraborty was struck off from the array of respondents and Barun Ghosh was added as a respondent in this proceeding. Said Barun Ghosh has also participated in the proceeding through his learned advocate.

4. Complaint of Barun Ghosh r