SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2319

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Subhendu Samanta, J
Subrata Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
WPA 15883 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Mr. Debabrata Chakraborti
For the Respondents: Ms. Sonal Sinha, Mr. Sourav Mondal, Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee, Mr. Pintu Karar, Mr. Akashdeep Mukherjee, Mr. Badrul Karim, Mr. Sujit Samanta

Authority must act promptly after issuing a business license, addressing complaints without unjustified delays.

Headnote:(A) Control Order - Issuance of license in terms of vacancy notification - Petitioner issued a license but not allotted business due to complaints from other applicants regarding eligibility - Relevant authority to conduct prompt investigations and make necessary allotments. (Para 12)

(B) Complaints and Allegations - Complaints regarding measurements and selection process by other applicants delay the allotment of the petitioner’s license, requiring the department to clarify and act swiftly. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner was granted a license after complying with necessary formalities but was unable to start business due to complaints about eligibility and transparency in the selection process. The complaints led to an enquiry which delayed allotment.

Findings of Court:
The court recognizes that the license is validly issued and directs the authority to expedite decision-making regarding the allotment. The delay caused by complaints is unjustified after an enquiry is conducted.

Issues: The court addresses whether the complaints justified the delay in allotment and emphasizes the need for prompt action by the authority following an issued license.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the authority must take prompt action to ensure the petitioner can commence business, despite previous complaints, once an enquiry has confirmed eligibility.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of with a direction for prompt decision.

Petitioner applied for licence in terms of vacancy notification dated May 29, 2024 issued by the SCF & S, Ghatal. After complying with due formalities according to the Control Order , the concerned authority has issued offer letter in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner has deposited the required fees through E-Challan to the department, thereafter a licnece was issued in favour of the petitioner on July 23, 2025.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that after issuance of such licence, the concerned authority has not made any allotment in favour of the petitioner. By such he could not start the business though the licence has already been granted. The petitioner seeks necessary mandamus upon the authority, so that petitioner may start the business in terms of the vacancy notification.

Ms. Sonal Sinah, learned counsel appears on behalf of the State place on record a case history of the instant matter. The case history reflects:

“14.05.2025 : Following all procedure the Food &

Supplies Department had approved as eligible candidate for FPS business in favour of Sri Subrata Ghosh.

15.05.2025 : As per departmental Guideline the SCF&S, Ghatal, Ghatal issued offer letter to the eligible candidate i.e; Subrata Ghosh. It is mentioned here that on that day this undersigned office received a complaint from Sukanta Chanak, Sekh Azizul Haque & Bushi Barik Ghosh who are other applicant of the said vacancy and they alleged that 1) the godown of the selected candidate was situated in different mouza and at a distance of 1.5km from the central location. 2) As selected person is the president of the co-operative societies, he cannot be an owner of FPS dealer.

23.05.2025: The DCF&S, Paschim Medinipur replied vide memo no.993/DCM(W)/MR/2025 date: 23.05.2025 that their complaint were not justified in accordance with vacancy notification vide Memo No.395/SCFS/GTL/2024 dated 29.05.2025.

28.05.2025 : Other applicants(Sukanta Chanak, Sekh Azizul Haque & Bushi Barik Ghosh) were further lodged a complaint and said that “According to the notification guidelines, the godown should be at least 01(one) feet height, the height of his godown has been wrongly shown as 2.5 feet. The height of our godown has been measured from the road. But the height of the godown of the person who was selected was not measured from the road or front side. So the whole process is not transparent. After proper investigation, the right person will be selected. After we complained on 27.05.25, today on 28.05.2025 the complainant JCP planted soil in front on the godown”.

12.06.2025 : After receiving the complaint, an enquiry had been done by a team consisting of SCF&S, Ghatal and Sub-Inspector(F&S), Ghatal and it was found that the plainth height from road level and ground level of the godown of Subrata Ghosh are 9”and 3’16” respectively. In addition to thaqt the said them measured the plinth height of the other present applicant on that day and it was observed that in case of measurement of the plinth height by the previous enquiry team, the plinth height of the godown of all the applicant was taken from road level except Subrata Ghosh which was measured from ground level. This resulted in getting extra number over the other applicant in the selection process.

In view of the above context, all the report had already been sent to the higher authority and instruction had been short in this regard. This office is waiting for instruction of the higher authority for further course of action.

23.7.2025 : in compliance with higher authority instruction, today i.e. 23.7.2025 license was issued to Sri Subrata Ghosh.”

Ms. Sinha also replied in para 11 of the case history, which is written as follows:

“Para-11 : It is denied and argued that after receiving the complaint, an enquiry had been done by a team consisting of SCF&S, Ghatal and Sub- Inspector(F&S), Ghatal and it was found that the plinth height from road level and ground level of the godown of Subrata Ghosh are 9” and 3’16” respectively.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top