IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
National Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA 12047 of 2015
Decided On : 19-05-2022
Misuse of Statutory Power - Co-operative Society - West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order 2003, 2013 - The court held that the action of the statutory authority in cancelling the Memo dated 23.03.2007 after the matter was heard by the authority amounts to misuse of power by the statutory authority or gross abuse of power. The order dated April 8, 2015 is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by fraud. The Memo dated 12.05.2015 which was issued pursuant to the order dated April 8, 2015 is also liable to be set aside and quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The co-operative society filed a writ petition seeking to set aside a Memo issued by the respondent and for prohibiting the filling up of a vacancy declared. The society claimed to be the most suitable candidate for the M.R. Distributorship, and the District Controller recommended the society for the vacancy. The society approached the court due to inaction by the respondent authorities in granting the license of M.R. Distributorship.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities misused their statutory power by converting an existing vacancy into a new and fresh vacancy. The court held that a vested legal right had accrued in favor of the petitioner to have their application considered in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Control Order.
Issues: The issues included the misuse of statutory power by the respondent authorities, the inaction of the respondent authorities in granting the license of M.R. Distributorship, and the cancellation of the vacancy declared under the 2003 Control Order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the action of the statutory authority in cancelling the Memo dated 23.03.2007 after the matter was heard by the authority amounts to misuse of power by the statutory authority or gross abuse of power. The order dated April 8, 2015 is liable to be set aside as it is vitiated by fraud.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order dated April 8, 2015 and the Memo dated 12.05.2015, and directed the Director to issue the license of M.R. Distributorship in favor of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the 2003 Control Order.
JUDGMENT
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - This writ petition is at the instance of a co-operative society praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to set aside the Memo dated May 12, 2015 issued by the respondent no. 5 and for setting aside the Memo dated April 8, 2015 issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of West Bengal and for prohibiting the respondents not to fill up the vacancy declared vide vacancy notice dated 12.05.2015.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition is as follows:-
A notification dated March 23, 2007 was issued by the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Murshidabad declaring the vacancy for new M.R. Distributorship at Chowki-Mouza under Bewa-II Gram Panchayat in the District of Murshidabad and applications were invited from the intending parties. Petitioner as well as other intending candidates submitted their applications for obtaining M.R. Distributorship. The Sub-Divisional Controller issued a Memo dated September 29, 2008 informing the petitioner to remain present on October 16, 2008 for holding enquiry of the godown. Petitioner claims to be present on October 16, 2008 and the inspection team made enquiry with regard to the fulfilment of criteria mentioned in the advertisement. A writ petition being WP No. 18223 (W) of 2009 was filed by one Rabindranath Das claiming to be a partner of the partnership firm namely 'Baba Baidyanath Bhander' which was disposed of by an order dated July 29, 2010 by directing the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation dated September 9, 2009 and to take a decision thereon in accordance with law within a stipulated time frame. The respondent no. 2, by an order dated November 12, 2010, rejected the claim of M/s. Baba Baidyanath Bhander upon holding that the partnership firm does not qualify for the proposed distributorship. Another applicant of the said notification dated March 23, 2007 namely Hossain Mohammad Kaizar filed a writ petition being WP 2394 (W) of 2011 challenging the order dated November 12, 2010 passed by the respondent no. 2. The said writ petition being WP 2394(W) of 2011 stood dismissed by an order dated April 7, 2011. The petitioner claims to have acquired knowledge from the order dated November 12, 2010 that the District Controller has recommended the name of the petitioner for filling up the vacancy in question as the most suitable candidate.
3. The petitioner claims to have submitted several representations, the last of which was dated December 10, 2011 requesting the concerned authority to dispose of the matter. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being WP No. 16066 of 2012 alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in granting licence of M.R. Distributorship. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated January 8, 2015 by directing the competent authority to issue the license of M.R. Distributorship under reference in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner is otherwise eligible for granting the above license and subject to compliance of all formalities in accordance with law.
4. Pursuant to the said order a notice of hearing dated March 25, 2015 was issued directing the petitioner to attend the hearing before the respondent no. 2 on March 27, 2015. The petitioner alleges that subsequently a vacancy notice dated May 12, 2015 was issued and applications were invited from different class of entities for filling up the vacancies of M.R. Distributorship at NTPC More, Farakka in the District of Murshidabad. Being aggrieved, by the said action of the respondent authorities the instant writ petition has been filed.
5. The specific stand of the respondents in their affidavit-in- opposition is that the vacancy declared by Memo dated March 23, 2007 was under West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order 2003 (for short 2003 Control Order') which stood repealed as on 08.08.2013 with the enforcement of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Contro
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs. Union of India & Ors. reported at (1986) 1 SCC 133
Indian Nut Products and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported at (1994) 4 SCC 269
Manoj Manu and Another vs. Union of India and ors. reported at (2013) 12 SCC 171
Raj Rishi Mehra and ors. vs. State of Punjab and Another reported at (2013) 12 SCC 243
Smt. Shrisht Dhawan vs. M/S. Shaw Brothers reported at (1992) 1 SCC 534
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Ors. reported at (1994) 6 SCC 151
Misuse of statutory power by the respondent authorities and the vitiation of the order dated April 8, 2015 by fraud.
A repeal of a Control Order extinguishes existing rights to selection processes under it, establishing that vested rights only arise upon completion of licensing.
The rejection of applications for distributorship based on criteria not included in the statutory framework is ultra vires and violates principles of natural justice.
The State Control Order, 2013 remains effective and is not rendered redundant by the NFSA, 2013 or TPDS Control Order, 2015 until full implementation of the NFSA is established.
The court established that the conditions added in the new vacancy notice were ultra vires and violated the principles of natural justice.
The court established that changes in law do not retroactively invalidate applications made under prior rules unless explicitly stated.
The court emphasized that the appellants had no legal right to challenge the State's policy decision, as it was taken at the top level of the administrative hierarchy and implemented through the subs....
A writ petition challenging the appointment of a fair price shop dealer on compassionate grounds is not maintainable if the petitioner does not have a judicially enforceable right and the authorities....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and accountability in the decision-making process by the State authorities, especially in cases where specific ....
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.