IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that administrative authorities have discretion in determining suitability for licenses, and minor non-compliance with specifications does not warrant judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. SCFS, Chanchal, Department of Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal issued FPS, Vacancy notification on 5th February, 2023 in the location of Mollabari, Janamdol, Jama Masjid, P.O.- Bishanpur, P.S.- Harishchandrapur, District- Malda. Present petitioner, private respondent No. 5 and other persons applied for the said vacancy.

2. Enquiry has conducted. After such enquiry petitioner came to know that the concern authority had issued an offer letter for dealership in respect of the said vacancy in favour of private respondent No. 5. The present petitioner challenged the said offer letter in this writ petition. The grounds of challenge of act and action of the respondent authority are as follows:-

1. Offered land of private respondent is surrounded by burial ground, there is not approach road for egress and ingress to the offered godwon from public road.

2. The area of offered shop room is not at par with the notification.

3. Special Divisional Controller (Food & Supply) Chanchal, submitted a report in the form of affidavit against the writ petition.

4. The respondent No. 5 also used affidavit-in- opposition against the writ petition; petitioner filed affidavit-in-reply against both the affidavits filed by the respondents.

Point No. 1 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 offered godown and showroom over LR plot No. 400. There is no approach road for loading and unloading of ration articles. Moreover, the said land was surrounded by a burial grounds (plot no- 399). Mr. Agarwal submits that the burial ground is a sacred place thus it cannot be used for the purpose of FPS dealership. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concern respondent authority has overlooked the situation and awarded the dealership in favour of respondent No. 5 which is the case of biasness.

5. Mr. Saha Ray, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits that which beside the offered plot No. 400, plot No. 399 is situated. The said plot of land (399) is vested to the government of West Bengal and being used by the local people for conducting “Urus” mela. It is the further submission of Mr. Saha Ray, that there are other shops situated at the same place; one Nursery School is also being run in the said plot of land. It is the further case of the respondent No. 5 that for the better purpose of egress and ingress from the offered land to the public road, the right to way over plot No. 398 which is connecting over plot no. 400 and the public road, has been declared by one Rejaul Haque & others by way of a deed of declaration. It is the submission of the private respondent that “the right of easement to way” has been declared in favour of the petitioner thus there is no obligation to run FPS dealership over the offered plot no. 400.

6. The State Authority by using affidavit submits that the private respondent No. 5 constructed the shop-cum-godown over plot No. 400. During inquiry it appears that there is huge space for loading and unloading in front of Plot No.- 400, whereas the Panchayat road is only 20 meters away, vehicle of food grain can be easily parked at the godown or at the adjacent to it. There is also 06 shops beside FPS of respondent no. 5. On Dag no. 399, there is a big ground, where a village fair namely “Urus” takes place every year on that ground and it is further case of the petitioner is that none was buried in the ground since the last 50 years. It is the further submission of the State Authority that considering the entire circumstances the respondent no. 5 appears to be more suitable and his candidature was approved by the competent authority.

7. In reply to the said submission of the State Authority, the petitioner used reply wherein she has pleaded that the nature of plot no. 399 is burial ground (kabarsthan). It is the further reply of the petitioner that the secretary of Janamdol, Kabarsthan Committee had issued a letter contending inter alia that, the plot no.