The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for MR Distributorship and the concept of 'person aggrieved' in the context of the ultimate decision taken in the impugned order.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal is at the instance of the appellant being a third party to a writ proceeding being WPA 10846 of 2021 alleging that the order disposing of the said writ petition pre-judiciously affected her right and, therefore, she has satisfied the ingredients of a ‘person aggrieved’.

2. A leave to appeal was sought and the Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the said application on 8th April 2022 granting leave to appeal with a rider that the grant of leave is restricted on the reasons stated therein and shall not be construed to have any impact on the merit of the matter, which would be considered when the appeal is listed for admission.

3. A little prelude to the genesis of the litigation is required to be recapitulated in order to ascertain whether the point agitated in the instant appeal deserves any merit. A writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 1 assailing the order of the competent authority whereby and whereunder the application for MR Distributorship in respect of Raghunathpur-II in the district of Purulia was rejected on a solitary ground of being the company.

4. The aforesaid application was taken out by the respondent no. 1 pursuant to the Notification dated 16th January 2019 issued by the Office of the District Collector, Food & Supplies, Purulia, Government of West Bengal for engagement as Distributor in Raghunathpur-II in the district of Purulia. Immediately after the said Notification, spate of litigation started pouring to this Court assailing the legality and validity of the said Notification and ultimately by an order of this Court, the authorities decided to withdraw the aforesaid Notification.

5. The order of withdrawal was assailed by one of the aspiring candidates, which traveled up to the Supreme Court and the resultant effect appears to be that the order of withdrawal was quashed and set aside. As a corollary effect, the said Notification dated 16th January 2019 was resuscitated and it was imperative on the part of the authorities to proceed with the applications filed by the aspirants on the basis of the said Notification dated 16th January 2019. The order setting aside the order of withdrawal by the Government having attained finality, there is no impediment on the part of the authorities to proceed on the basis of the said Notification dated 16th January 2019, which, in fact, has been done in relation to an application filed by the respondent no. 1.

6. As indicated above, the rejection was founded solely upon the count that the respondent no. 1 being the company is neither an individual nor a group of individuals, which is one of the essential conditions enshrined in the said Notification. By the impugned order dated 23rd February 2022, the Single Bench accepted the contention of the respondent no. 1 that the company has a legal entity comprising of the group of individuals and, therefore, the decision of the authorities in arriving at the decision that the company cannot be equated with the group of individuals is untenable and unacceptable. Ultimately, the Single Bench directed the authorities to proceed with the application filed by the respondent no. 1 in accordance with law.

7. Such being the substratum of facts discerned from the record, the first and foremost point, which emerged in the instant case, is whether the appellant can be held to be a ‘person aggrieved’. Though the leave to appeal was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench on 8th April 2022, but subsequently by an order dated 12th April 2022, the Co-ordinate Bench was apprised of the fact that the leave to file an appeal was granted on the basis of wrong facts having placed before the Court and an order was passed that the observations made in an order granting leave to appeal is a prima facie opinion and shall be decided at the time of final hearing of the proceeding.

8. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid two orders manifestly indicate that the order granting leave to appeal was tentative and no final opinion was expresse