The court ruled that family members of a deceased bachelor are entitled to compassionate appointment only if the partnership firm is reconstituted, and it will not resolve private disputes regarding entitlement.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Two Appeals are specially assigned to this Bench by the order dated April 10, 2025 of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

2. These two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing and are directed against the same impugned judgment and order dated December 14, 2023 passed in WPA 7087 of 2019 with WPA 7969 of 2019.

3. Both the appeals are at the behest of the same appellants.

4. Appellants and the State are represented.

5. None appears for the private respondent.

6. In course of hearing of the appeals, we requested the learned Advocate-on-record for the appellants to inform the learned Advocate-on-record for the private respondent which the learned Advocate for the appellants did. Despite such information being given, none appears for the private respondent.

7. Of the two writ petitions, as noted above, one was at the instance of the private respondent being WPA 7087 of 2019. The other writ petition being WPA 7969 of 2019 was at the behest of the appellants before us.

8. Both the groups of the private parties seek devolution of an MR licence in their favour.

9. One Jogendra Nath Ghosh, since deceased, was the MR dealer. He expired on January 29, 1997 leaving him surviving four sons and two daughters. Of the four sons, namely, Biswanath Ghosh, Tapan Ghosh, Ajay Ghosh and Utpal Ghosh, Ajay Ghosh and Utpal Ghosh constituted a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s. Ghosh Brothers which applied for the MR dealership standing in the name of late Jogendra Nath Ghosh and was allotted the same.

10. Ajay Ghosh one of the partners of M/s. Ghosh Brothers and a son of late Jogendra Nath Ghosh expired on March 10, 2015 as a bachelor.

11. Definition of ‘family member(s)’, as appearing in the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 includes brother or sister of a bachelor/spinster in Clause (2)(m)(vi). At the time of death of Ajay Ghosh, Biswanath Ghosh, Tapan Ghosh and Utpal Ghosh and two daughters of late Jogendra Nath Ghosh were surviving.

12. In terms of such definition of “family member(s)”, therefore, both Biswanath Ghosh and Tapan Ghosh became entitled to the compassionate appointment as MR dealer in respect of the licence standing in the name of M/s. Ghosh Brothers. M/s. Ghosh Brothers as noted above was a partnership firm of two persons, namely, Ajay Ghosh and Utpal Ghosh. On the death of Ajay Ghosh on March 10, 2015, the partnership firm came to end and the same was not reconstituted amongst the family members. That is not claimed in the two writ petitions also.

13. The authorities were faced with requests of Utpal Ghosh as one part and of Biswanath Ghosh and Tapan Ghosh on the other part for the grant of MR dealership licence standing in the M/s. Ghosh Brothers. All persons in the two writ petitions as noted above, claimed themselves to be dependent upon the MR dealership licence standing in the name of M/s. Ghosh Brothers. Authorities rejected both the requests. In this regard, learned Advocate appearing for the State draws the attention of the Court to the Order No.977- FS/Sectt/Food/6F-03/2014 dated April 28, 2014 and in particular Clause (vi) thereof.

14. Validity of the orders of rejection were under challenge in the two writ petitions. Learned Single Judge allowed Utpal Ghosh to enjoy the fruits of the MR dealership standing in the name of M/s. Ghosh Brothers.

15. There are serious civil disputes between the heirs and legal representatives of Ajay Ghosh as to who represents Ajay Ghosh in the application for MR dealership licence on compassionate ground. Family as amended on September 29, 2023 includes a brother or a sister of a bachelor. Ajay Ghosh died as a bachelor. Biswanath Ghosh and Tapan Ghosh are brothers of such deceased Ajay Ghosh.

16. Partnership firm of M/s. Ghosh Brothers is yet to be reconstituted. Therefore, as a Writ Court, we should not enter into the arena of settlement of the disputes inter se amongst the private parties for the purpose of considering which o