JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The appeal and the connected application are taken up for hearing together, in view of identity of the issues raised in both.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against an order of the learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed.

3. In the writ petition, the appellant had challenged the rejection of the FPS dealership of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had committed fraud.

4. Although initially, before the writ court, primarily a ground was taken that no show cause notice was served prior to passing the rejection order learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits before us that although a notice was given, the ground of fraud was not established.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in the present case, the FPS licence was obtained upon an enquiry report having been taken by the respondent authorities in accordance with law and only after verification of the veracity of the application of the appellant, licence was granted.

6. Learned counsel submits that two grounds have been cited in the order cancelling the licence of the present appellant.

7. The first ground was that a wrong plot number was mentioned in the lease deed which was produced by the appellant, which erroneous plot number was reiterated in the licence application by the appellant to be the land where the godown-in-question stood.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the recording in the lease deed of the number of the plot as 387 was entirely a bona fide error whereas the correct number should have been plot no. 375. It is submitted that since the boundaries of the plot, as stated in the lease deed, tally with that of plot no. 375 and were correctly disclosed in the lease deed, there could not be any dispute about the identity of the plot.

9. That apart, even the enquiry report of the respondent authorities indicates that the authorities proceeded on the premise that the appellant's godown, which was inspected, was standing on plot no. 387. Thus, the stand of the appellant, that it was a bona fide mistake and not a deliberate suppression, is vindicated since the authorities themselves also committed the same error in their enquiry report.

10. Learned counsel places reliance on a judgment in the matter of P. Udayani Devi Vs. V. V. Rajeshwara Prasad Rao and another reported at (1995)3 Supreme Court Cases 252 where the Supreme Court observed that the position in law is well-settled that certificates of sale are documents of title which ought not to be lightly regarded or loosely construed.

11. The Supreme Court went on to observe, by relying on previous judgments, that in the sale certificate, the boundaries as well as the plot number were mentioned but there was a mistake in mentioning the plot number, in which context it was held that the matter may have been different if no boundaries had been given in the final decree for sale as well as in the sale certificate and only the plot number was mentioned. But where both the boundaries and the plot numbers were given and there was a mistake in the plot number, it must be treated as a mere misdescription which does not affect the identity of the property sold.

12. Insofar as the other ground cited for cancellation of the appellant's licence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant argues that although the character of plot no. 375 was recorded as “Jal”, that is, water-body, in reality, the lease deed describes the godown situated on the said property, which was also established from the enquiry report of the respondent authorities themselves. Thus, the mere erroneous recording in the records of rights cannot alter the fate of the licence issued to the appellant, since the required criterion was that a godown of appropriate proportions, as indicated in the vacancy notification, was to be possessed by the applicant.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, who is the landlord of the a