Administrative authorities must adhere to originally stated grounds for decisions, avoiding subsequent introduction of new grounds to reject applications.

JUDGMENT : 

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1.Petitioner applied for license in terms of vacancy notification dated 18th October, 2022 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Islampur. Her candidature was rejected on the ground that proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner was constructed over a plot of land which was recorded as a Sarak (road) instead of “Dokan commercial/ Bastu”.

2. Petitioner approaches this court by virtue of a writ petition being no. WPA 11229 of 2024 on the ground that the record of right in respect of the land over which the proposed shop-cum-godown was constructed was erroneously made by the concerned authority. Latter, on the prayer of the petitioner the same was corrected to 'Bastu' from 'Sarak'.

This court disposed of the writ petition vide its order dated 4^th April, 2025 and directed the petitioner to approach the authority concerned on the basis of corrected record of right.

3. The direction of this court in the said writ petition is set out herein below:

“Concerned authority is directed to review their stand in respect of allowing the petitioner to be a licensee in respect of vacancy notification dated 18th October, 2022 in the changed facts and circumstances as mentioned herein above.

The petitioner is directed to approach the concerned authority within two weeks from the date of passing of this order with the copy of this order along with a specific representation with all documents.

The concerned authority shall dispose of his representation and shall issue the licence in favour of the petitioner, if she otherwise appears to be suitable according to the provisions of law. The decision of the authority shall be arrived at within six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

The authority must not confine/confused themselves in mere point of limitation or other technical points, but they shall act according to the true letter and spirit of order of this court. The decision of the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Subsequent, Notification dated 9th May, 2024 issued by the concerned SCFS which was stayed by this court during the pendency of the instant writ petition be made final.

The State authority shall not proceed to the said notification (09.05.2024) till their reasoned decision as directed hereinabove.”

4. In pursuance to the direction of this court the petitioner approaches the authority concerned and had passed a reasoned order on 27th May, 2025 after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the petitioner.

5. By passing the reasoned order the concerned authority rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that:

1) The reason for rejection of candidature against the vacancy notification dated 18.10.2022 is her failure to have a bank balance of Rs. 50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only in her bank account.

As per submitted bank statement she had only Rs. 2575.42, failing short of required working capital.

2) Consequently, the petitioner is found ineligible for issuance license against the vacancy notification dated 18.10.2022.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authority has rejected the candidature of the petitioner by a new ground. At the time of disposing of the earlier writ petition the concerned authority has placed on record a report in the form of affidavit. In the same report they appended the enquiry report regarding proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner wherefrom it would be revealed that the petitioner was disclosed to be financially solvent. The report itself discloses that the petitioner was solvent when the enquiry was made at the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner i.e. on 11^th April, 2023.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority now rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not solvent at the time of making application.