IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Hon’ble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash AND Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen M.A.T. No.760 of 2022 C.A.N 1/2020 Dilip Saha @ Dilip Kumar Saha.

-Versus-

State Of West Bengal For the Appellant : Mr. Kalyan Bondopadhyay, Sr. Adv : Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Adv.

: Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv.

: Mr. A.G Mukherjee, Adv.

: Ms. Sonam Roy, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Adv.

: Mr. Manas Kumar Sadhu, Adv.

Heard on: : 28.09.2022 Judgment on. : 29.09.2022 PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : –

1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment dated 19.04.2022, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge in W.P.A No.4252/2022, whereby and whereunder the writ petition as filed by the petitioner (appellant herein)

was dismissed.

2. The petitioner felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal.

3. Before the Learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 15.02.2022, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Jangipur, Murshidabad (hereinafter referred to as SDC Jangipur, Murshidabad) whereby SDC Jangipur, Murshidabad refused to grant license of F.P.S Dealer/Distributor in favour of the present appellant on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father Janardan Saha (since deceased).

4. On perusal of the impugned order as passed by the Learned Single Judge, it reveals that Hon’ble Single Judge dismissed W.P.A 4252/22 basically on the following grounds:-

i)the contention of the writ petitioner that since his father i.e the original ex-dealer or the original licensee had opted in his favour for grant of license during his life time and thus , “No Objection” from the other legal heirs of the original licensee/ex-dealer are not necessary, is not tenable in the eye of law.

ii)the other legal heirs of the original dealer have given their consent beyond the prescribed time limit.

iii)the integrity of the writ petitioner is questionable since before the SDC Jangipur, Murshidabad, he relied on the fake legal heir certificate.

5. In support of the instant appeal learned advocate for the appellant at the very outset draws our attention to the judgement dated 05.08.2022, as passed in MAT 842/2022; Gurupada Das vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this High Court.

6. Placing reliance upon the case of Gurupada Das (supra), learned advocate for the appellant contends that while passing the impugned judgement dated 19.04.2022, Learned Single Judge has got no occasion to go through the judgement of Gurupada Das (supra), as the same was passed subsequent to 05.08.2022. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the propriety of the decision dated 05.08.2022, as taken in the case of Gurupada Das (supra), it is well settled that “No Objection” from all the legal heirs of the original dealer is not at all necessary and on the contrary, consent is only necessary from the dependant family members of the deceased licensee for considering engagement as dealer/distributor on compassionate ground in view of Clause (2)(m) of the of the 2013 Control Order and in view of the settled position of law as enshrined in the case of Gurupada Das (supra).

It is thus, argued that the proposition of law as involved in the case of Gurupada Das (supra) is squarely applicable in this case and on this score the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

7. While opposing the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the State contends that the factual matrix as involved in the present appeal are quite distinguishable from the facts and circumstances as involved in the case of Gurupada Das (supra). It is contended further that since there was no statutory compliance on the part of the present appellant for getting compassionate engagement as dealer/distributor in place of his deceased father, the original licensee and since the Learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the integrity and honesty of the appellant is questionable o