The scope of an enquiry directed by a court cannot be exceeded by the authority conducting the enquiry. The authority must properly consider all relevant documents and evidence before passing an order.

JUDGMENT :

Jay Sengupta, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for direction upon the respondent authorities not to give effect to and/or take further steps on the basis of the order in Memo No. 3010(9)/DCSF/MSD/14 dated 05.01.2014 and the order under Memo No. 2594(7)/S.Ganj/14 dated 11.11.2014.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted as follows. Vacancy for MR Dealership was declared and advertisement was issued by the respondent authorities for appointment of M.R. Panchayat on 15.12.1992. In response of the said advertisement, the petitioner herein applied on 28.12.1992. That the Area Inspector (F & S) made enquiry into the matter and recommended the application of the petitioners hereof and the respondent no. 8 herein along with other 7 eligible candidates with the remarks “application may be considered”. In course of such enquiry Khadhya Sarbarah Sthyee Samity, Shamserganj made recommendation to set up Godown at Khejurtala (Jotkashi) near village Raghunandanpur. On 31.01.1994 the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S), Jangipur, considered such recommendation of the Khadhya Sarbarah Sthyee Samity, Shamserganj directed that the case of the petitioners hereof (respondent no. 11 in W.P. No. 1857 (W) of 2021) might be considered if it offered another site for proposed godown at Raghunandanpur and a notice was issued upon the petitioners herein to provide a new site for the godown. In response to such notice the petitioners herein offered another site. In the mean time the respondent no. 8 herein challenged the recommendation of the SubDivisional Controller (F & S) Jangipur, in a writ petition being C.O. No. 6241 (W) of 1994 and a stay of selection process was passed therein. The said writ petition was dismissed for default on 27.09.2005 and the respondent no. 8 herein moved another writ petition for the self same relief being W.P. No. 12309 (W) of 2010. The said writ petition was dismissed on 29.03.2012 by the Hon’ble Single Judge on the ground of second writ petition. The said respondent no. 8 preferred an appeal being MAT No. 724 of 2012 against the dismissal order dated 29.03.2012 and the Hon’ble Division Bench did not interfere with the impugned order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The respondent no. 8 herein being the writ petitioner in C.O. No. 6241 (W) of 1994 renumbered as WP No. 6241 (W) of 1994 filed application for restoration and the W.P. No. 6241 (W) of 1994 was restored by the Hon’ble Single Judge. The petitioner herein respondent no. 11 in W.P. No. 6241(W) of 1994 preferred an appeal being FMA No. 2792 of 2013 and the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the order of restoration and gave liberty to challenge the issuance of license. The respondent no. 8 filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 1857 (W) of 2014 (Kausar Ali Versus State of West Bengal & Ors.). On 18.07.2014 the Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing “....Accordingly, I am unwilling to interfere with the impugned order dated 31.03.1994 passed by the respondent no. 4 calling upon the inspector to enquiry into the matter as to whether respondent no. 11 was in a position to provide alternative site. However, the factual controversy as to whether respondent no. 11 had, in fact, offered plot no. 1976/2317, Khatian No. 3766, Mouza – Kankuria, in respect of which the license has been issued, requires to be enquired into by the concerned authority. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing respondent no. 3 District Controller, to make enquiry into the matter and ascertain as to whether the respondent no. 11 had, in fact, offered the aforesaid plot in question in respect of which the impugned licence has been issued.....” The District Controller (Food and Supplies), by an order dated 05.11.2014, cancelled the license of the petitioner. The order of the District Controller was served by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies) on 1