JUDGMENT :

1. The Advocate-on-record for the appellants undertakes before this Court to rectify the defects pointed out by the Additional Stamp Reporter dated 24^th December, 2024.

2. The challenge in the instant intra court appeal is to an interim order dated 12th December, 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.A. No. 27453 of 2024.

3. The writ petition was filed by an Association of Fair Price Shop Dealers in the State of West Bengal. The said Association is recognized by the State. Discussions have been held with the said Associations by the State in the past.

4. The grievance of the Association in the writ petition was with regard to the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024 (in short "Control Order of 2024"). The said Control Order was passed by the State pursuant to power conferred under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the mandate under the GSR No.213E dated 20^th March, 2015 issued by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Distribution of the Central Government.

5. The distribution of essential food grains to consumers under the Central Public Distribution System Scheme implemented through the State are required to be governed by the Rules which the State in the country are authorized to frame.

6. In exercise of such powers, the State of West Bengal passed the aforesaid Control Order of 2024. The writ petitioners are aggrieved by several provisions of the Control Order of 2024. One particular provision that the learned Single Judge found fault with, at an ad interim stage of admission of the writ petition, was Chapter-IX thereof, concerning penalties on erring dealers.

7. The learned Single Judge was persuaded by the writ petitioners to stay Chapter-IX of the Control Order of 2024 primarily on the ground that paragraphs 45 and 46 thereof, do not provide sufficient safeguards to a FPS dealer, before imposition of penalties.

8. The learned Single Judge of this Court, at the time of admission of the writ petition, which challenged the constitutional vires of the Control Order of 2024 as a whole, was pleased to stay the operation of Chapter-IX thereof.

9. Learned Advocate General, Mr. Kishore Datta, has advanced threefold arguments against the impugned order. Firstly, that interim orders are seldom passed, at an ad interim stage in a writ petition challenging the constitutional vires of any Rules or Statute. The learned Single Judge of this Court was apprised of the decision of the Hon"ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Health for Millions Vs. Union of India & Ors.  (2014) 14 SCC 496 and several other cases where at paragraph 13 thereof the aforesaid proposition was discussed and laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court of India. The learned Single Judge while recording the same in his order dated 12^th December, 2024 has not applied the same.

10. Secondly, the writ petitioner Association cannot be aggrieved by the Control Order of 2024 as a whole since no specific violation of the principles of natural justice has been brought to the notice of the Court. The locus of the Association to maintain the Writ Petition is questionable.

11. Thirdly, whenever a Statute is silent on the compliance of the principles of natural justice, the same have to be read into such Statute and/or Rules. The apprehension expressed by the writ petitioners as accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court for violation of principles of natural justice was, therefore, misplaced.

12. Countering the arguments of the learned Advocate General and supporting the interim order, Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray, learned Senior Advocate has argued that mere use of the expression “after being heard” would essentially give uncanalized powers to the authorities implementing the aforesaid Control Order of 2024. He has from his experience referred to several cases where mere lip service of a personal hearing and compliance of natural justice has been demonstrated.

13. Mr. Saha Ray has r