Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

&

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Kumar

MAT 1145 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025

Renjuma Khatun

Vs.

The State of West Bengal and Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Shuvro P. Lahiri,

Md. Habibur Rahaman,

Mr. Rajesh Naskar.

For the State : Mr. Swapan Kr. Dutta, Ld. Sr. Adv & AGP,

Mr. Rajat Dutta.

Heard on : August 21, 2025. Judgment on : August 21, 2025.

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya , J .:

1. Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.

2. The conspectus of the present appeal is limited. The petitioner

applied for an FPS dealership. Initially, the said application

was rejected on the ground that the character of the land was recorded as “Sarak”.

3. The petitioner challenged the said rejection on the ground that the recording in respect of the said land was erroneous, which had been revealed from the relevant documents. The said previous writ petition, preferred against the prior rejection, was ultimately allowed, thereby directing the appropriate authorities to consider the application of the writ petitioner afresh.

4. However, upon such reconsideration, the respondent authorities now rejected the application on the ground that the requisite balance as per the vacancy notification was not there in the bank account of the petitioner on the date of the application for such dealership. The second writ petition was filed challenging such rejection, which culminated in a dismissal, which has been assailed in the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the learned Trial Judge committed a legal error in dismissing the writ petition in view of the principle as laid down in Mohindar Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported at (1978) 1 SCC 405. It is submitted that once particular reasons are given for rejection by the respondent authorities, such reasons cannot be subsequently supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. By placing reliance on the expression “or otherwise”, learned counsel contends that such resiling from the earlier position and supplementation of a fresh reason is not permitted in any manner whatsoever.

6. It is, thus, argued that the respondent authorities could not have refuted the application of the petitioner in the second round on a fresh ground by supplementing the original ground of rejection.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the arguments of the appellant and contends that paragraph no. 8 of Mohindhr Singh Gill’s case, which was considered and quoted by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, categorically recorded that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. However, it is contended that in the present case, since in the previous round of litigation, the writ court had directed a fresh consideration of the application of the appellant, all issues were left open to be considered afresh. Hence, the respondents were justified in rejecting the application of the appellants on a ground as stipulated in the vacancy notification.

8. Upon hearing learned counsel, we find substance in the contention of the respondents.

9. Mohindar Singh Gill’s judgment was rendered in the context of a challenge against a State action. Where the Executive rejects an application or chooses a certain course of action by assigning particular reasons, it cannot improve upon the said reasons, either by way of affidavit or otherwise, by supplementing or supplanting fresh reasons at the stage of a challenge against its action.

10. However, in the present case, the said proposition is not applicable simply because in the earlier round of litigation, the writ court had not restricted the scope of consideration only to the rejection on the ground of