IMPORTANT POINT
A license issued in joint names permits the surviving partner to continue the business after the other partner's surrender, as per established legal principles.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. One Munshi Jahanara Khatoon wife of Imtajuddin of Shabalsinghapur owned one MR License No. 1080/MR & S.K Oil License/113/K/DK/09. The said Munshi Jahanara Khatoon submitted petition with the concern authority on 16.06.1998 for induction of partner namely Najia Begum (petitioner) due to financial problem. On the basis of such application, hearing was conducted on 15.06.1999 wherein a partnership deed was produced which contend that the partnership would have 90% share of Najia Begum. After concluding of the hearing, MR & SK Oil License were issued in the name of two partners Najia Begum and Munshi Jahanara Khatoon jointly on of 24.03.2000 cancelling the previous license of maintaining formalities on the basis of the partnership deed.

2. On 17.11.2011 Munshi Jahanara Khatoon submitted a prayer before the concern authority to surrender her ownership from MR and SK Oil License Kerosene oil business. Her application for surrender of ownership was accepted by the concern authority.

3. The petitioner submitted a representation with the concern authority to continue the license in her name in individual capacity, such prayer was not considered thus she moved this court being WP No. 1105 of 20111 for renewal of his kerosene license and another writ petition being WP No. 41 of 2012 for renewal of MR dealership license. In both the writ petitions, this court has passed an interim order directing the authority to renew the license of the present petitioner till a particular period. Both the matter was heard together and the said writ petitioners are disposed of by this court directing the concern authority (SCFS) Arambag to take decision in accordance with law. The concern authority has given a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the parties and has passed the impugned order on 2nd September 2016 against which the instant writ petition was preferred.

4. The State authority submitted a report in the form of affidavit against the writ petition. It is the case of State Authority that according to the direction of this court the said respondent has given the appropriate scope of hearing to both the parties and after hearing the parties the impugned order was passed. It is the positive case of the State that there is no provision in the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013 to allow the petitioner to run the business individually. The law has decided by this court in Amitava Dutta vs. State of West Bengal is not applicable in this case.

5. Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal, Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the concern authority is illegal in the eye of law. The issue has been well settled by this court. In Amitava Datta vs. State of West Bengal, a coordinate Bench of this court while deciding the issue has specifically held that when the license was issued in the joint name, after demise any of the license, the other person may carry out the business in his individual capacity.

6. For better appreciation, the observation of this court in Amitava Datta is set out as follows:

The petitioner's prayer for grant of licence in his own name, however, has been rejected on the ground of dissolution of the partnership firm on death of one partner, where the total number of partners were two. Since the licence in this case was granted in joint names of the petitioner and his deceased sister and not in firm name, I do not think principle of dissolution of partnership can be applied in the instant case. It is not clear to this Court on what basis the deed of partnership was executed and to what extent the authorities relied on the same, but the fact remains that licence was issued jointly, in favour of the petitioner and his deceased sister.

7. Mr. Agarwal also cited a decision of the Division Bench of this court passed in Utpal Ghosh and State of West Bengal and submits that the Division Bench of this court has directed the concern aut