IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Protik Prakash Banerjee, JJ.
Bakul Rani Patra - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondents
M A T No. 1019 of 2018; C A N No. 6965 of 2018
Decided On : 24-06-2020
MR dealership - Compassionate Appointment - West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 - Paragraph 20 - Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - [Paragraph 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955] - The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to compassionate appointment under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, and the interpretation of the time limit for making an application for appointment on compassionate ground. The court emphasizes the importance of interpreting the provisions in a manner that ensures equal treatment before the law and equal protection of the laws for all citizens.
Fact of the Case:
The widow of a deceased MR dealer applied for the dealership on compassionate ground beyond the specified time limit of 60 days from the dealer's death. Her application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Controller, leading to a writ application being dismissed by a learned single judge. The widow appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the time limit of 60 days for making the application for compassionate appointment was not mandatory and could be condoned if sufficient grounds were made out. It held that the rejection of the widow's application on the ground of delay was improper and set aside the previous judgment. The respondent authority was directed to consider the application for grant of dealership of compassionate ground made by the appellant and come to a decision within eight weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the time limit of 60 days for making the application for compassionate appointment was mandatory or directory, and whether the delay in making the application could be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the time limit of 60 days for making the application for compassionate appointment was directory and not mandatory. It emphasized that the delay in making an application for compassionate appointment could be condoned if sufficient grounds were made out, and that the rejection of the widow's application on the ground of delay was improper.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the respondent authority was directed to consider the application for grant of dealership of compassionate ground made by the appellant and come to a decision within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
I. P. Mukerji, J. - This judgment was made ready before the imposition of lockdown by the government on account of the COVID pandemic. It is now being delivered after proper availability of technical infrastructure to deliver the same. MR dealership granted by the state government is not a heritable right. When an MR dealer dies, a vacancy in the distribution network arises. In the usual course it is filled up by a selection process. However, the legal heir of the deceased distributor is given an option to apply to the government for grant of dealership, in his or her favour, on compassionate ground within or without a specified time limit. The case for compensation is made out if the family is in financial hardship. When such an application is made and the other conditions in the scheme for the grant of dealership in such a contingency are fulfilled, then the government has a discretion to grant the dealership in favour of the legal heir.
2. In this case, the legal heir is the mother of the deceased dealer, Sabyasachi Patra. She filed such an application. However, this application was delayed by a few months. On this ground alone her application was not considered by the government.
3. In the instant writ application [WP 14866(W) of 2018] the learned single judge by his impugned judgment and order dated 16th August, 2018 dismissed the writ application of the widow on the ground that the time limit of sixty days from the death of the MR dealer specified in the scheme could not be extended on any ground and that the respondent authority was justified in rejecting the delayed application of the appellant/writ petitioner.
4. Now, I shall come to the facts in more detail.
5. The government of West Bengal issued the Kerosene Control Order in 1968. It provided for issuance of a licence for MR dealership. It is issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies of the district. In this case, the licence was issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Bankura. It was in favour of the husband of the appellant, appointing him as an MR and Kerosene dealer.
6. The subordinate legislation involved is the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013. It was made in the exercise of the power conferred on the state government by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with a notification dated 31st August, 2001 issued by the Central government. Paragraph 20 of this order provides for appointment of a family member of a deceased dealer on compassionate ground. The criterion to be satisfied is that for shortage of financial resources the family on the death of the dealer cannot survive. This application had to be made within 60 days of death.
7. During the lifetime of the appellant s husband, at his request this dealership was transferred to his elder son, Sabyasachi Patra. The appellant has averred in the writ petition that her son, Sabyasachi ran the dealership properly obtaining a licence under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 read with the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
8. The appellant was visited by misfortune. She lost her husband on 21st December, 2008 and her son, Sabyasachi on 6th January, 2016.
9. She stated in the writ petition that she was greatly disturbed mentally on the death of her son. She was living separately from the rest of the family. After partially recovering from her grief, she had no option but to stake her claim for the dealership on compassionate ground to meet the expenses of living. She says that on or about 9th June, 2016 she decided to make the application for transfer of the dealership in her favour. On the same day she filled up the TR Form No. 7, which was the applicable form, got it countersigned by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Bankura and deposited the application fee of Rs.1,000/-. It is also said that the application with the requisite documents could only be filed with the authority on
Bhawani Prasad Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors.
LIC vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar
Malwa Strips Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Ltd.
Piali Saha vs. State of West Bengal
Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India
Sharif-ud-din-v-Abdul Gani Lone
State of Bihar vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti
State of Mysore & Ors. vs. Narasimha Ram Naik
Surendra Trading Company vs. Juggilal Kamlapat Jute Mills Company Ltd. & Ors.
Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd vs. U.T., Chandigarh and Ors.
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.