The court established that subsequent orders and the National Food Security Act, 2013 superseded the memo from 1999, and the petitioners' claim for equal treatment was dismissed due to lack of a license for the entire area.

JUDGMENT :

Amrita Sinha, J.

1. In response to a vacancy notice published in the year 2005 for appointment of distributor, the petitioner No.1 being a partnership firm applied for the vacancy at Bhupatinagar within one kilometre from Block office of Bhagwanpur-II. The petitioner No.1 was found eligible and a license was issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 in 2009 to act as distributor for the location Bhupatinagar within one kilometre from Block Office of Bhagwanpur-II. Tagging of the Fair Price shops with the firm was made on 15th September, 2009. The petitioners are running the business from 2009 onwards and the license issued in favour of the petitioner No.1 was renewed from time to time by the respondents.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the number of ration cards which have been tagged with the private respondents. According to the petitioners only 20 dealers having 1,54,197 ration cards have been tagged with them, whereas the private respondent no. 4, Alaka Mandal, has 37 dealers with 2,81,460 ration cards and an additional load of seven dealers with 46,901 ration cards. Respondent no. 5, M/S. Ramkrishna Enterprise, has 41 tagged dealers with 2,96,504 ration cards with two additional dealers with 14,862 ration cards. Discrimination is alleged.

3. The petitioners’ contention is that a distributorship becomes viable upon tagging of at least 2,50,000 ration cards. The petitioners rely upon a memo dated 13th April, 1999 issued by the Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal which mentions that the guidelines set out in the said memo is to be followed in respect of appointment, tagging and retagging of distributors, wholesalers and retailers in MR area. It mentions that not more than 2.5 lakh ration cards shall be tagged with an MR distributor.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that relying on the aforesaid memo the petitioners reasonably expected that at least 2.5 lakh ration cards will be tagged with them, but surprisingly only 1,54,197 ration cards have been tagged, whereas more than the prescribed limit of 2.5 lakh cards has been tagged with the private respondents. Petitioners seek equal treatment.

5. It has been argued that the respondents were estopped from taking a different stand and ought to have allotted the prescribed limit of 2.5 lakh ration cards to the petitioners in terms of the memo dated 13th April, 1999.

6. According to the petitioners in compliance of the direction passed by the Court on 6th April, 2021 the respondents were to file a report in the form of an affidavit disclosing the reasons why the petitioners were unequally treated contra the other two distributors.

7. It has been submitted that the report filed by the respondents does not disclose any reason whatsoever as to why the petitioners have been treated unequally. It has been argued that the alleged report filed on behalf of the State respondents is devoid the required information and accordingly no reliance may be placed on the same.

8. The petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to tag all the dealers of Bhagwanpur-II block with the petitioners’ distributorship.

9. The prayer of the petitioners has been strongly opposed by the State as well as the private respondent Alaka Mandal.

10. It is the contention of the State that license was granted to the petitioner on 14th September, 2009 in respect of Bhupatinagar under Purba Medinipur district. The petitioners are continuing with the business from 2009 onwards without raising any objection seeking tagging of more ration cards. It has been submitted that the grievance of the petitioners that the business was not viable for want of enough ration cards, was never ventilated before the respondent authorities. It has been submitted that the 1999 memo relied upon by the petitioners lost its force the moment West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order came into force. There is no concept of block-wise distributorship