The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'No Objection' Affidavit from dependent family members for compassionate engagement as a dealer, and the authority's obligation to consider applications within a specified time frame.

JUDGMENT

Chitta Ranjan Dash, J. - In this Appeal Judgment dated 18.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WPA No. 2774 of 2022 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the present appellant is impugned.

2. Rasbihari Das who was a fair price shop dealer ('FPS dealer' for short) under the control of Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies ('SDC,F&S' for short), Contai died on 08.10.2019 leaving behind his sons named Gurupada Das (present Appellant), Haripada Das (present Respondent No. 6) and Kalipada Das including two married daughters named Lakshmipriya Das @ Jana and Sresweti Das @ Payra (since deceased). After the death of aforesaid Rasbihari Das, present Appellant being the son of late Rasbihari Das filed required application on 31.12.2019 in Form C of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013 ('2013 Control Order' for short) along with the Annexure-I thereto with requisite fees etc. Subsequently, on 19.01.2021, the Appellant filed 'No Objection' Affidavit from all the legal heirs of his late sister Sreswati Das @ Payra who had expired on 15.08.2020.

The present Appellant claimed that his late father Rasbihari Das during his life time had sworn an Affidavit (P2 to the Writ Petition) on 05.02.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Contai exercising his option to engage the present Appellant as a FPS dealer in his place. Such Affidavit along with a representation had been presented to the SDC, F&S (Respondent No. 5). When no action was taken by Respondent No. 5, the present Appellant again on 31.12.2019 presented a representation requesting him therein to issue licence of FPS dealership in his favour in place of his deceased father on compassionate ground. By report dated 03.06.2021 (Annexure P8 to the Writ Petition) submitted by the Inspector, Food & Supplies, in charge of Contai III Block, the present Appellant was found to be fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for grant of licence for FPS dealership on compassionate ground as his father Rasbihari Das had died in harness. On 06.01.2022 (Annexure P10 to the Writ Petition) the application filed by the Petitioner on 31.12.2019 in Form C of 2013 Control Order along with the Annexure-I thereto with requisite fees was rejected on the ground that one of the family members i.e. Haripada Das (present Respondent No. 6) has not given his 'No Objection' Affidavit.

3. Such order vide P10 to the Writ Petition obliged the present Appellant to approach this Court in WPA No. 2774 of 2022.

4. Before the Hon'ble Single Judge the following points on facts were pressed:-

Rasbihari Das, the FPS dealer during his lifetime having opted to transfer his licence in favour of the present Appellant as he was looking after him during his incapacitation and was also looking after his business, there was no necessity of filing 'No Objection' Affidavit from all the family members as the option exercised by the present Appellant's late father Rasbihari Das had not been nullified by the intervention of his death.

The Appellant's father having opted for engagement of the Appellant as a dealer in his place by filing Affidavit dated 02.02.2019 and representation dated 05.02.2019 and the appropriate department having sat over the matter without any action thereon, the right of the present Appellant that accrued on option being exercised by his late father should not have been negated on intervention of his death, requiring the present Appellant to file 'No Objection' Affidavit from all the family members including the present Respondent No. 6.

The application of the petitioner in Form C vide Annexure P6 to the Writ Petition though filed after death of his father, being in continuation of the representation of his late father made long since along with the Affidavit by his father, the authority concerned should not have insisted upon, 'No Objection'

Affidavit from all the family members including Respondent No. 6.

The ratio of the case decided in Samar Das Vs. St