The refund of application money does not create estoppel, and applicants have a right to be considered for distributorship. Cancellation of vacancies without citing cogent grounds is unjustified.

JUDGMENT

Ravi Krishan Kapur, J. - These two petitions are taken up for hearing together. In WPA No.16013 of 2019, the petitioners seek its right to be considered as a potential distributor in respect of two separate vacancies notified by the State respondents. By two separate Notifications both dated 6 January, 2019 published in the Official Gazette, the respondent authorities invited applications for engagement as a distributor in the Raghunathpur II area and the Jaipur block area both in the district of Purulia. Both the notifications stipulated the eligibility criteria. The notifications also stipulated the prescribed documents which are to be submitted by a prospective applicant.

2. Subsequently by an order dated 7 August, 2019 the aforesaid vacancies issued by the respondent authorities was sought to be withdrawn. The order dated 7 August, 2019 is the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition being WPA no. 16713 of 2019.

3. Pursuant to the vacancy notification dated 6 January, 2019 the petitioners submitted two separate applications dated 1 April, 2019 respectively. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the said two applications filed by the petitioner have been considered or dealt with by the respondent authorities. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents there are only two grounds which have been urged by the State respondents (a) that the petitioner no.1 is a company and is not entitled to a distributorship and (b) pursuant to the order dated 7 August, 2019, the vacancy in respect of the areas for which the petitioners had applied have been duly cancelled for all the applicants.

4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no reason in law to deprive the petitioner company from being considered as a potential distributor merely on the ground that the petitioner no.1 is a company. In this connection, reliance was placed on Section 2(j) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013 which defines "distributor" and also on the statutory form no.1 under paragraph-27 (1) of the Control order wherein a licence for distributorship is granted to Co-Operative society/ Self Help Group/ Company/partnership firm. Moreover, emphasis was also placed on the definition of "a group of individuals as an entity". In support of their contentions, the petitioners also rely on the decision reported in The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. vs. The Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam and Ors., (1963) AIR SC 1811 . It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the refund of the application money and the encashment of the same does not create any estoppel against the petitioners to challenge the action of the concerned authorities. In support of this contention the petitioners also relied on the decisions reported in Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors., (1986) AIR SC 180 , Nar Singh Pal Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Basheshar Nath Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi & Rajasthan & Anr., (1959) AIR SC 149 .

5. On behalf of the State respondents it is contended that the fact that the applicant should be a permanent resident of the concerned district as stipulated in the eligibility criteria excludes the petitioner company from the scope of consideration for the respective vacancies. It is also urged on behalf of the State respondents that the subsequent fact that the petitioners have been refunded the application money prevents them from raising the impugned challenge.

6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties.

7. At the outset, I deal with the aspect of waiver and estoppel raised on behalf of the State respondents. It is contended on behalf of the State respondents that since the petitioners have been refunded their application money they are estopped from impugning the actions of the respondent authorities. It appears from the records that the first writ petition was filed on 14