IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate must meet all eligibility criteria to have standing in challenging an administrative decision; mere dissatisfaction does not confer legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

BIVAS PATTANAYAK, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of appointment of respondent no. 10 as M.R. Dealer and for issuance of FPS Dealership licence in favour of the petitioner.

2. The brief fact of the petitioner’s case is that the petitioner and the respondent no. 10 amongst others were the applicants in respect of vacancy notification being Memo No. 592/SCFS/BER/2022 dated 11th May, 2022 declaring vacancy in respect of engagement of Fair Price Shop dealer for the location Mahammadpur covering Chadipur village, Mahammadpur. Upon such application being made, pursuant to the vacancy notification, inspection was conducted and the petitioner was found to be most suitable. However, later on, the petitioner came to learn that the respondent no. 10, Jahangir Hossain, has been selected as FPS Dealer against such vacancy notification. The petitioner on 24th July, 2023 approached the District Magistrate, Murshidabad by a representation requesting him to take steps for inquiring into the matter of such selection of respondent no. 10. On 26th July, 2023, another representation was also made before the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies), Berhampore Sadar. Since the representations made by the petitioner challenging such appointment of respondent no. 10 was not considered, the petitioner filed the present writ petition for cancellation of appointment of respondent no. 10 as FPS Dealer and issuance of licence in her favour.

3. Despite service of notice, respondent no. 10 did not appear at the first instance. In compliance to order dated 13th October, 2023, the State filed its report on 2nd January, 2024 and exception was filed on 9th January, 2024 by the petitioner. On 24th January, 2024, supplementary affidavit was filed by the State-respondent. Thereafter the matter was taken up for hearing. During the course of hearing, learned advocate representing respondent no. 10 intervened to make his oral submission opposing the prayers made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

4. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was found to be eligible for the grant of licence against such vacancy notification. However, the petitioner came to learn subsequently that the respondent no. 10, Jahangir Hossain, has been granted the licence. The petitioner being an unemployed lady having all eligible criteria including spacious, well-ventilated shop-cum-godown with pucca construction with concrete roof and having financial solvency applied in response to such vacancy notification. The size of godown of the petitioner is 446.82 sq.ft. and the shop is 200.18 sq.ft. which is much more in comparison with the shop-cum-godown of the respondent no. 10 measuring 625 sq.ft. Further the space in front of the godown of the petitioner is much more than the space available in front of the godown of the respondent no. 10 for unloading of goods. The State-respondent in its report contended that the main thing is the vicinity of the shop-cum-godown from the central place and since the primary consideration is the location which is beneficial to the public at large, the State takes into consideration the location of shop-cum-godown from the central location. Applying such principles, the State-respondent should have granted licence to the petitioner since her godown as per report is 50 metre away from the central place whereas the godown of the respondent no. 10 as per report is at a distance of 100 metre from the central point. Further as per the eligibility criteria, the godown should have a pucca construction with concrete floor whereas as per report the roof of the godown and sale counter of respondent no. 10 is made of CI Sheet. The godown and sale counter of respondent no. 10 are on different floor and are not adjacent to each other. In spite of such lackings, the authorities awarded extra marks to respondent no. 10. Moreover, referring