IMPORTANT POINT
The impugned notification for Fair Price Shop vacancy was found to be in furtherance of the statutory objective for control, protection, supply, and distribution of essential commodities, and the court affirmed the order refusing interim relief.

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The present batch of MATs are by way of an intra Court appeal being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 03.12.2020, rejecting the prayer of the writ petitioners for interim relief seeking stay of Government notification dated 06.03.2020 whereby and whereunder a vacancy notice for Fair Price Shop (FPS) was issued by the Government.

2. The learned Single Judge has refused the prayer for interim relief at the ad interim/ preliminary stage, on the ground that the same would not be prudent in view of the public purpose involved in the impugned notice dated 06.03.2020, that also without affording the state an opportunity to place its stand by way of affidavit/s. The learned Single Judge thereafter has directed affidavit-in-opposition to be filed and the matter has been directed to be listed under the heading for hearing.

3. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy appearing for the appellant submits that the requirement of maintaining an amount of Rs. 5 lakh in deposit for a period of one year, preceding the date of application is an unreasonable restriction imposed by the impugned notification. Such a condition is arbitrary and unsustainable. It is not in furtherance of; rather it is detrimental to the objective of running Fair Price Shop by an unemployed youth, and would serve no useful purpose.

4. This was the only issue raised by the appellant/petitioner before the learned Single Judge. In these proceedings, however, the learned Counsel representing the appellant/petitioners has submitted that the impugned notification suffers from various other infirmities rendering it legally and constitutionally unsustainable. He has alleged the same to be discriminatory.

5. Though “individual” applicants are required to be residents of the locality where the vacancy has arisen, there is no such requirement in the case of Co-operative Societies, Self-help Groups and Companies.

6. Another discrimination alleged is regarding the requirement specified in eligibility criteria No. 8 of the impugned notice that applicant (in case of individual) should not be employed in any Government/Semi-Government Organization/ School and should not be an elected Member of any Panchayati Raj institution/ urban local body. Whereas there is no such restriction operating against applicants under the category self-help groups/ registered co-operative societies, semi Government bodies, group of individuals.

7. At this juncture we consider it appropriate to record that the instant appeal was listed earlier on 04.03.2024 only to be adjourned for sending intimation to the learned Advocate General and enabling his appearance. The matter was thus fixed at 02:00 pm. Unfortunately, the learned Advocate General could not appear in the matter, when it was called on 02:00 pm, whereafter it was adjourned to the next date (05.03.2024). On 05.03.2024 also the State remained unpresented and we thus proceeded to hear the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner.

8. We find the impugned notification containing notice of vacancy for appointing FPS under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) order 2013 (‘the Control Order 2013’ for short) was issued in furtherance of the statutory objective contained in the Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act for control, protection supply and distribution of essential commodities for securing their acquitable distribution and availability at fair price. The entire exercise of issuing the impugned notification, therefore, is to achieve the social objective of securing supply of essential commodities for the public. The public purpose is, therefore, overwhelming.

9. Having said so, we consider it appropriate to deal with the objections taken by the appellant to the requirements under the impugned notice dated 06.03.2020. The premise for the objection regarding the requirement of maintaining 5 lakh rupees in deposit for a year preceding the advertisement/notice is founded on a misconception t