The court emphasized the need for proper reasoning and consideration of facts in administrative decisions, and highlighted the importance of interpreting and applying relevant provisions of the Control Order in appointment disputes.

JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The son of the original M.R. Dealer, since deceased, filed this writ petition praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to set aside the order dated November 5, 2008 passed by the District Controller, Food and Supply, Burdwan and to allot the M.R. dealership in favour of the petitioner.

2. The father of the petitioner namely Lakshmi Kanta Mondal was appointed as a M.R. Dealer. He died on April 18, 2007. After his death the petitioner applied for being appointed as a M.R. Dealer on compassionate ground. Since the authority was sitting tight over the matter, petitioner filed a writ petition being WP No. 4326(W) of 2018 which was disposed of by an order dated July 16, 2018 by directing the concerned authority to take a decision on the petitioner's application on being satisfied of the petitioner having adequate infrastructure for conducting the business of a dealer and other conditions stipulated for such compassionate engagement being fulfilled, the authority shall consider granting the petitioner license for such dealership.

3. Pursuant to the said order passed in the writ petition, District Controller, being the respondent no. 2 herein passed an order dated November 5, 2008 rejecting the application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

4. The respondent no. 3 filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that pursuant to the order passed in WP No. 4326(W) of 2018 an enquiry was held and it was mentioned in the enquiry report that the godown which was shown by the petitioner was a residential mud house which is not fit for storage of foodgrains. It was, further, stated that the petitioner failed to furnish consent from the owners of the house to conduct such business from the proposed place of storage. It was, further, stated therein that the other legal heirs of the deceased dealer raised objection against grant of dealership in favour of the petitioner.

5. The respondent no. 9 claims to be the grandson of the original dealer. The said respondent filed an affidavit-in- opposition stating that his father Ambika Mondal predeceased his grandfather i.e., the original dealer. It was contended that the original dealer affirmed an affidavit for substitution of his name in the dealership license. It was specifically stated therein that the godown which was shown by the petitioner for storing the goods is jointly owned by him and his brother Swapan Mondal by virtue of a deed of gift executed by his grandfather. Thus, according to the respondent no. 9, the petitioner cannot claim himself to be a co-sharer of the godown.

6. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being the son of the original M.R. Dealer is entitled to be appointed as a M.R. Dealer on compassionate ground. He contended that the godown which was used by the original M.R. Dealer was inspected by the concerned authority pursuant to an order passed by this court on the earlier writ petition and the authority could not have held that the said godown is not fit for storage of foodgrains. He, further, submitted that the petitioner has constructed a pucca structure on a plot which is very near to the mud built shop from where the original M.R. dealer was running his dealership business. He submitted that the respondent authorities can be directed to inspect the said property and consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the dealership license in favour of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

7. Mr. Ahmed, learned advocate for the State relied on the order passed by the District Controller on November 5, 2008 and contended that the godown is a residential house and the condition of the said godown is not fit for storage of foodgrains. He submitted that in the absence of consent from the owners of the said godown the petitioner cannot be allowed to carry on the dealership business from the said shop room. He further submitted that in course of hearing