JUDGMENT :

SUJOY PAUL, CJ.

1. In PIL, being WPA(P) 361 of 2025 the petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 7th August, 2025. The order dated 7th August, 2025 is sought to be implemented by a dealer in a Single Bench matter, i.e. WPA 25777 of 2025. In other words, in the PIL the order dated 7th August, 2025 is the subject matter of challenge whereas in WPA/25777/2025 it is prayed that the said order be directed to be implemented. Accordingly, both the matters were analogously heard with consent and decided by this common order.

Factual Matrix :

2. The facts are taken from PIL. On 7.9.2024, upon an inspection conducted by the Food and Supply Department on the premises of distributor/respondent no.5 it was found that 2513.80967 quintals of rice were found short and/or misappropriated. Accordingly, on 9.9.2024, a show cause cum suspension notice was issued to the respondent no.5. The respondent no.5 filed his reply to the said show cause notice.

Stand of the Petitioner :

3. The stand of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in PIL is that the public distribution system in State of West Bengal is governed by the statutory provision, namely, West Bengal Targetted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “Control Order”). This is not in dispute in the instant cases that the validity of the impugned order needs to be decided on the anvil of the said Control Order.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner by taking this Court to various provisions of the Control Order urged that the competent authority has not acted in consonance with and in terms of the said Control Order.

5. In order to explain, it is submitted that Clause 48 of the Control Order deals with punishment for black marketing, misappropriation or siphoning off commodities under public distribution system. It is submitted that the authority in consonance of Clause 48 can suspend the license of a distributor immediately after giving him an opportunity of being heard and if he is found guilty, may pass a reasoned order by imposing a punishment of either fine or reduction of volume of business according to the gravity of offence or terminate his license. Reliance is also placed on Schedule C. Part II of the Schedule C is relied upon which deals with penalty for offence/contravention. It is submitted that for committing offence under Clause 48 the fine or cost can be imposed in the manner described in the third column of Schedule C.

6. By taking this Court to the impugned order, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Controller (F & S) (hereinafter referred to as District Controller) passed an order, which is unknown to law. He permitted the respondent no.5 to replenish the deficit quantity of 2513.80967 quintal of rice and imposed a penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- only. Upon depositing the same, the license was directed to be restored.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also relied on Clause 50 of the Control Order to demonstrate that there exists a statutory time limit of maximum 90 days within which the disposal must take place. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the proceeding commenced with issuance of show cause notice on 9.9.2024 which ended with imposition of penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- on 24.07.2025. Thus, the statutory time limit of 90 days was deliberately breached and the proceedings continued upto 330 days.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Control Order/Statute does not contain any provision to replenish the deficit quantity of food items. In absence of any enabling provision, the statutory authority was not competent to adopt this method, which is unknown to the Statute. It is submitted that if a Statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done in the same manner. Reliance is placed on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Nautam Prakash DGSVC, VADTAL