IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

RVW 201 of 2025

With

CAN 1 of 2025 Kabita Mondal

Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal

Ms. Nibedita Pal

Mr. Anand Gopal Mukherjee

For the State : Mr. Swapan Datta

Heard on : 16.07.2025

Judgment on : 26-9-2025

Subhendu Samanta, J.

This is an application for review against the judgment and order dated

February 25, 2025 passed by this Court in WPA 2972 of 2025.

The brief fact of the matter is that the present petitioner approached

this court challenging reasoned order dated September 17 of 2024 passed by the Director, DDP & S who has turned down the application of petitioner for compassionate appointment. This Court vide impugned order dated February 25, 2025 has disposed of the entire writ petition with the observation as

follows:

“On the facts and circumstances of this case it appears to me that the

writ petitioner is married daughter of the deceased dealer who no applied for

the license for compassionate ground rather filed “no objection” in favour of some other applicants, who are the family members. Now as their application were not materialized, the present petitioner has applied for the license. In my view there is a long delay in filing the application for jetting compassionate appointment. The status of the present petitioner can be considered to be a “fence sitter” who was consciously silent and observing the fate of the litigation. After litigation was over, the petitioner jumped over the spot and applied for the license. In may view of the petitioner being a “fence sitter” can not apply for a license which she has already denied by declaring “no objection” through affidavit affirmed before the competent authority. In the writ petition the petitioner can not claim equity what she already consciously denied to receive.”

Mr. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that at the time of passing the impugned order, the petitioner failed to apprise this Court regarding the provisions of West Bengal Public Distribution System(Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003, which was in vogue at the time of demise of the dealer. He submits that according to the amendment of Control Order, 2013 dated December 14, 2020 married daughter came under the definition of “family member”. Prior to that petition being married daughter cannot apply for compassionate appointment on demise of his father. Such fact was not raised before this Court at the time of hearing. Thus, the change of law has to be considered afresh. Accordingly, the review application has been placed.

Mr. Dutta, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State respondent has raised strong objection and submits that the grounds raised by the review petitioner is not available under reviewed jurisdiction. Thus, the review petition is not maintainable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and also considering the grounds mentioned in the review itself, it appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress this Court on the fact that the petitioner being a married daughter of deceased dealer could not applied for licence under compassionate appoint as per provision of Control Order, 2013. By virtue of amendment dated December 14, 2020, under Control Order, 2013 petitioner being a married daughter may apply for licence under compassionate appointment. Accordingly, petitioner had applied for licence in the later stage.

On hearing the submission of Mr. Agarwal, it appears to me that this Court has already taken a decision that the petitioner initially has given “no objection” in favour of a relatives of the deceased dealer, when such relative applied for licence. Thereafter, when the prayer of such relative was turned down, petitioner again applied for licence on compassionate ground. The conduct of the petitioner once issuing no objection, thereafter again applied for licence is deprec