25.03.2025 Sl. No.10 Ct. No.24 S.A.

WPA 21009 of 2023 Monaim Biswas -vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Raju Mondal Mr. Masooq Rahman …for the petitioner Mr. Supratim Dhar Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee …for the State SCFS, Domkal issued a vacancy notification being Memo No.1061 dated 19.10.2022 for FPS licence in respect of vacancy location Ganra Baria, Ganra Baria More. The petitioner applied for the licence by making specific application. After few days, the concerned SCFS again issued a notification being Memo No.1156 dated 21.11.2022 for FPS licence for the location Ganra Baria, nearby Ganra Baria Jamme Masjid.

On the basis of the application of the petitioner, his proposed shop-cum-godown was inspected but ultimately his candidature was rejected on the ground that his proposed shop-cum-godown is situated under the vacancy Memo No.1156 dated

21.11.2022.

The petitioner challenged the act and action of the authority for issuance licence in favour of respondent no.7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposed shop- cum-godown of the petitioner is situated nearer than the proposed shop-cum-godown of the respondent no.7 from Ganra Baria More. He submits that the concerned authority only in terms of nepotism has allowed the candidature of respondent no.7 though his godown is situated far from the central location in terms of vacancy location No.1061 dated 19.10.2022. It is further argued that the concerned authority only to facilitate the respondent no.7 has granted the licence.

The State respondent submits a report in the form of an affidavit, against the writ petitioner along with the said report, they have placed the enquiry report of the present petitioner as well as the enquiry report of private respondent no.7.

Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the State has placed reliance upon the enquiry report in connection with the petitioner wherein the enquiry officer has mentioned that the distance of the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner from the central location is 3100 metre while the distance of proposed shop-cum-godown of private respondent from central location is 130 metre. It is the further contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the GPS location of proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner as well as the private respondent has been clearly depicted in the report wherefrom it would be revealed that the distances as calculated by the inspection team is correct. He further submits that as the proposed shop-cum-godown of the private respondent is nearer to the proposed shop-cum- godown of the petitioner and for other reasons the private respondent appears to be a suitable candidate.

So the licence is granted in his favour.

One exception was placed by the petitioner against the report contending inter alia that the proposed shop-cum-godown of the private respondent is about 1.7 km away from Ganra Baria More but petitioner’s shop-cum-godown is about only 70 metre away from Ganra Baria More. He placed Google Map showing the location. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an independent authority may be directed to cause an enquiry regarding the distance of the shop-cum-godown of the petitioner and the private respondent from the central location.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears that only disputes appeared before this Court regarding the fixing of central location by the authority in respect of vacancy ID.202200223517.

It is the contention of the petitioner that if the Ganra Baria More is taken to be the central location of the said vacancy, the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner is nearer than the private respondent. It is the contention of the respondent authority that the central location i.e. the Ganra Baria More has been clearly depicted by Google Map appended with this report. It appears that the petitioner also placed a Google Map along with the exception. Vacancy ID.202200223517 has a v