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 have acted in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations.

JUDGMENT :

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

1. On the basis of an advertisement published in a Bengali Daily “Bartaman” on 4th September, 2020 under the signature of respondent No.2, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Barasat, North 24 Parganas, a vacancy notification was declared for filing up the vacancies of Fair Price Shop under the provision of WBPDS (Control and Maintenance) Order, 2013. The terms and conditions to be fully filled up for filing the application was also notified in the Kolkata Gazette on 13th March, 2020 and 7th July, 2020. The petitioner applied for the grant of licence in respect of the vacancy arising at Ashokenagar in the district of North 24 Parganas on 24th September, 2020 along with all supporting documents which was duly received by the respondent No.4 on 30th September, 2020. The petitioner received a notice, dated 9th January, 2021 from the respondent No.4 intimating her that physical inspection would be conducted on 14th January, 2021 at around 2 pm at the proposed location of the petitioner at Ashokenagar. She was asked to remain present in the said location. After conducting physical inspection on the aforesaid date, the petitioner reasonably thought that she would get to know the result of the said inspection. However, she did not get any reply as to the status of her application. The petitioner wrote a letter by e-mail. On 5th January, 2022 she received a reply from respondent No.4 wherefrom she came to know all the previous notifications were cancelled as per the instruction from the Directorate of DDP & S for re-notification of the appointment of FPS dealer against the said notification. The said Sub-Divisional Controller also received another instruction from the Directorate, DDP & S for reconsideration of the case of Smt. Anjana Bhattacharjee, private respondent No.6 herein for appointment of FPS dealer of compassionate ground in place of her deceased father Late Anil Chandra Chakraborty.

2. Therefore, the instant writ application is filed by the petitioner for a direction of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus upon the respondent authority to adhere to the Rules and Regulations contained in WBPDS (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 as amended from time to time. The case of the private respondent No.6, on the other hand, is that her father was the MR dealer in respect of the fair price shop at Ashokenagar. He died on 2nd February, 2013 and upon his demise, the petitioner made an application for her appointment on compassionate ground before the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Barasat on 2nd May, 2013. The Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Barasat summoned all the legal heirs of the said deceased dealer for hearing and the said legal heirs gave their no objection in favour of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Controller rejected the petitioner’s application on 6th January, 2015 on the ground that the petitioner applied for licence of dealership of fair price shop on the basis of Control Order of 2003. However, the said Control Order was repelled by 2013 Control Order. The application for compassionate appointment ought to have filed by the respondent No.6 under 2013 Control Order. Thus, the application was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Controller, but it was never communicated to the respondent No.6. The respondent No.6 made an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, i.e., the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Barasat and subsequently to the Director, DDP & S for consideration of her application for appointment on compassionate ground. During the pendency of the said appeal the Sub-Divisional Controller declared vacancy in respect of dealership of fair price shop at Ashokenagar on 4th September, 2020.

3. Since the appeal of the respondent No.6 was pending before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority directed the Sub-Divisional Controller not to renotify the vacancy and the said resultant vacancy was cancelled on 29th Ap