The amendment to the Control Order of 2013 is prospective, establishing new rights for daughter-in-laws in applications for compassionate transfer, rather than clarifying previous law.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 21st March, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.A. 6337 of 2024.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate transfer of license as daughter-in-law of one Bishnu Kumar Roy, an existing FPS licence holder.

3. The facts of the case are that one Bishnu Kumar Roy was an existing FPS licence holder, who died on 4^th October, 2015. The legal heirs of the said Bishnu Kumar Roy were Nirod Baran Roy, Aparna Banerjee and Parbati Chatterjee.

4. Upon the death of the original licensee, his grandson, namely, Rana Roy, applied for FPS licence on compassionate ground. The said application was rejected since the Control Order of the year 2013 at Section 2(m) did not include the grandson within the expression “family members.”

5. The said Rana Roy, grandson challenged the rejection of his case by W.P. 1447 (W) of 2018. The said writ petition was dismissed on 26^th June, 2018 with liberty to other legal heirs of the deceased licensee to apply for FPS licence on compassionate ground in terms of the applicable Rules thereof.

6. Curiously, the appellant herein had not applied for compassionate transfer of dealership either in the year 2015 or after the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 26^th June, 2018 (supra).

7. Be that as it may, Section 2(m) of the Control Order of 2013 was amended by a Notification dated 29th September, 2023. By reason of the amendment, a daughter-in-law i.e. son's spouse replaced, widow of pre-deceased son within the expression “family members” under Section 2(m) of the Control Order of2013.

8. Before the Single Bench and this Court, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant's cause of action arose only on 29^th September, 2023 after the amendment of the Clause 2(m) of the Control Order of 2013. She could not, therefore, apply for transfer of licence on compassionate grounds prior thereto.

9. It is next argued that the amendment to Clause 2(m) on 29^th September, 2023 and such amendment being clarificatory, it would have retrospective effect and date back to the death of the original licensee Bishnu Kumar Roy, i.e. 2015.

10. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sokhina Bibi Vs. Sahidur Rahaman @ Sahidur Islam & Ors. (2024) SCC OnLine 2550. It was held in the paragraphs 11 to 12 of the said judgement that the amendment dated 29^th September, 2023 is clarificatory in nature and would have retrospective effect from 2013.

11. This Court is of the view that the Coordinate Bench in its judgement dated 15th March, 2024 may have ignored of the binding dicta under Article 141 of the Constitution, in para 19, 20 and 21 in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Prasad Verma , (2017) 5 SCC 665 and in paragraph 52 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Ors. Vs. Dr. Manu and Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640.

12. This Court holds as such as that the decisions have been referred to by the Coordinate Bench but their scope has not been correctly appreciated or applied.

13. In terms of the practice followed in this country and in this Court, a decision of an earlier co-ordinate bench is binding on subsequent bench. If the subsequent Division Bench differs with the views of another, it is req