A statutory provision cannot be given retrospective effect so as to impair or take away an existing right unless the statute either expressly or by necessary implication directs that it should have such retrospective effect.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing an order passed by respondent no. 3 under memo no. 229/DR/SSLC dated November 14, 2014 (Annexure P-8 to this writ application) rejecting the prayer of the petitioner no. 1 for transfer of dealership in respect of the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner no. 1 bearing no. FPS-2832 (hereinafter referred to as the said fair price shop), running in the Sub-Area of Jorasanko of Kolkata North Sub-Control of the Food and Supply Department, Government of West Bengal in favour of the petitioner no. 2 (his nephew).

2. According to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 had been running his said fair price shop for a considerable period of time. The petitioner submitted an application dated August 19, 2011, to the respondent no. 3 for issuing the licence of his said fair price shop in the joint name incorporating the name of the petitioner no. 2 therein as a partner. The petitioner no. 2 was his nephew (the son of his elder brother). The petitioner no. 2 also submitted a representation on the same date, i.e. on August 19, 2011, with relevant papers and documents.

3. By an order communicated under memo no. 496/E dated November 3, 2011, the respondent no. 5 informed the petitioner that there was no provision for joint ownership of a fair price shop under the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control), 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said Control Order, 2003).

4. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application dated June 5, 2013, (received by the respondent authority on June 6, 2013) (Annexure P-5 to this writ application) to the respondent no. 3 for transfer of his licence in respect of the said fair price shop in favour of the petitioner no. 2 on the ground that he could not run the said fair price shop properly without the participation of the petitioner no. 2 due to his physical disablement due to old age. The above application was accompanied by the necessary papers and documents including the medical certificate in support of his physical disability.

5. By the impugned order as communicated under memo no. 229/DR/SSLC dated November 14, 2014, the respondent no. 3 rejected the above application of the petitioner no. 1 on the ground that the petitioner no. 2 did not come within the zone of consideration under the provisions of Clause (f) of paragraph-16 of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the said Control Order, 2013).

6. It is submitted by Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the said Control Order, 2013, came into force with effect from August 12, 2013, i.e. after submission of his application dated June 6, 2013. According to him, the provision of the said Control Order, 2013, was not applicable in case of consideration of his application under reference.

7. Mr. Saha Roy relies upon the decisions of Katikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 567, P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka, reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 644, and an unreported decision dated December 5, 2014 passed in the matter of Reba Mukherjeev. The State of West Bengal (in re: WP 12361 (W) of 2014) in support of his above submission.

8. It is submitted by Mr. S. Sengupta, learned Junior Government Advocate, High Court, Calcutta, that the said Control Order, 2013, came into force on the date of consideration of the application and as a result the application of the petitioner was considered under provisions of the said Control Order, 2013.

9. Mr. Sengupta relies upon the decisions of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.State of Haryana, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and MGB Gramin Bank v.Chakrawarti Singh, reported in 2014 (3) CHN (SC) 31 in support of his above submissions.

10. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for t