An applicant must demonstrate being aggrieved by the selection process to maintain a writ petition challenging licencing decisions.

Petitioner applied for licence in terms of vacancy notification dated May 13, 2024 issued by the Sub-

Divisional Controller, Food & Supply, Jhangram.

It is the contention of petitioner that after he submitted online application, his proposed shop cum godown was inspected by the concerned authority but though he was a suitable candidate the private respondent was granted licence though he is not eligible to hold the licnece.

At the initiation, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent raised point of maintainability of the instant writ petition.

Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the private respondent submits that the petitioner though challenged the selection of private respondent but never pray for any relief on behalf of him (the petitioner). He submits that petitioner only asked for issuance of mandamus upon the concerned authority for declaration of fresh vacancy over the some area. He further submits that the petitioner has not demonstrated that how he is an aggrieved person in respect of act and action of the respondent authority, so the instant writ petition is not at all maintainable.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for licence in the said impugned vacancy notification and filed online application. The concerned authority inspected his proposed shop cum godown. Thereafter, the authority concerned had not intimated the rejection of the petitioner but has selected the private respondent. He submits that the private respondent was not a resident within the Jhargram Sub-Division, so as per Clause 1(A) of part 1 as well as Clause 7(i) of part II of the said impugned vacancy, the private respondent is not eligible candidate.

Petitioner further submits the application for sanction building plan by the respondent was only made to the authority on August 12, 2024. Thus, it appears that the private respondent has constructed proposed shop cum godown without any proper sanction plan. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the candidature of the private respondent was required to be cancelled on the basis of these two grounds but the respondent authority has arbitrarily selected the private respondent and granted her licence.

He further submits that there are other materials to entertain the instant writ petition accordingly to justify the fact stated in the writ petition. The authority may be directed to submit a detailed report in the form of affidavit.

Learned counsel appearing (virtual mode) on behalf of the State respondent submits a short report contending inter alia that private respondent has already granted licnece and it appears that private respondent is distributing ration articles. The report also demonstrates the brief fact of the matter, which disclosed that private respondent has scored highest mark in the score base system of selection procedure adopted by the Government of West Bengal. Thus, private respondent being the most eligible candidate granted the licence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, let me consider the submission on behalf of the private respondent regarding point of maintainability, it appears that petitioner is one of the applicant of the impugned vacancy notification. He submitted online application after providing necessary, his proposed shop cum godown was inspected by the concerned authority.

In the writ petition in prayer (‘A’) petitioner seeks issuance of mandamus upon the respondent authority for setting aside the selection of private respondent. In prayer (b) a prayer of mandamus also made for direction upon the concerned authority for taking steps for declaration of fresh vacancy in the same location.

In prayer ‘c’ and ‘d’ are the in the nature writ of certiorari. Prayer ‘e’ contains Rule NISI and prayer ‘f’ contains interim relief for such an allotment of food grains in favour of the private respondent.

In the entire pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner never demonstrated before this Cour