In the High Court at Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

And

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Supratim Bhattacharya

MAT No. 835 of 2025 IA No: CAN 2 of 2025

The State of West Bengal and Others

– Versus –

Kandi Srijani

For the appellants/State: Mr. Swapan Kr. Datta, Sr. Adv. & G.P.,

Mr. Tapas Kr. Dey, Adv.

For the respondent/

writ petitioner : Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Debasish Kundu,

Mr. Subhankar Das, Advs.

Heard on : 13.11.2025 & 27.11.2025

Reserved on : 27.11.2025 Judgment on : 02.12.2025

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State authorities

against the judgment dated April 2, 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge disposed of WPA No. 7296 of 2025 by quashing an order dated March 24, 2025 passed by the concerned authorities, by which the Fair Price Shop (FPS) License of the petitioner was revoked, and directing the authorities to reinstate the writ petitioner/respondent with immediate effect as licensee and allow him to continue with the licence according to the procedure

established in law. It was further clarified by the learned Single Judge that the findings of the writ court shall not debar the authority concerned to proceed against the writ petitioner for termination of licence according to the procedure established in the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control)

Order, 2013 (for short, “the 2013 Control Order”).

2. Learned Government Pleader contends that the learned Single Judge proceeded on the erroneous premise that once a licence is issued, the status of the writ petitioner is that of a „licensee‟ and not an „applicant‟ and, as such, the licence could not be revoked.

3. It is argued that in terms of the Vacancy Notification dated December 11, 2013, pursuant to which the FPS Licence was granted to the writ petitioner/respondent, the eligibility criteria restricted the applicants to individuals permanently residing in the Domkal Sub-Division, Registered Partnership Firm, Registered Co- operative Society, Sangha or Mahasangha of Self-Help Groups working within Murshidabad District. As such, societies which were not co-operative societies but registered under the Societies Registration Act were not eligible under the said Vacancy Notification even to apply for such licence. The writ petitioner/respondent, being admittedly not a co-operative society but an ordinary society registered under the Societies Registration Act, was, thus, not eligible to participate.

4. It is argued that Clause 9 of the Vacancy Notification merely provided, in addition to the eligibility criteria stipulated in Clause 8, that certain category of persons/entities also would not be eligible to apply for licence of FPS Dealership. However, it is contended that unless the threshold eligibility criteria were fulfilled, no entity would be eligible to apply for such licence in the first place. Hence, the grant of licence to the respondent was the result of a bona fide error at best and such grant was void ab initio in view of the respondent having not met the eligibility criteria.

5. Learned Government Pleader places reliance on the screenshot of the online application of the respondent on the official portal to indicate that the respondent had categorically mentioned under the heading “Application Type” that it was a “Registered Co-operative Society”. Thus, due to such misrepresentation on the part of the respondent, the authorities were misled into granting the FPS Dealership to it, despite the respondent being merely a society under the Societies Registration Act and not a registered co-

operative society in terms of the eligibility criteria.

6. It is submitted that in view of such suppression and misrepresentation on the part of the respondent, the appellants were justified in revoking its licence.

7. Learned Government Pleader relies on Clause 11(iv) of the Vacancy Notification which provides that any suppression of fact/information or in