Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - (1.) As far as this writ petition no. 515 (W) of 2020 is concerned, I had the opportunity to extensively hear the matter on February 6, February 27 and March 12 of this year. In spite of the matter being posted for March 19, 2020, a period of lull ensued owing to the disruption caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic and the lockdown that was imposed nationwide on March 24, 2020. In the meanwhile, the State respondents proceeded to take precipitous action against the petitioner, in this case, which compelled the petitioner to file CAN 3809 of 2020 seeking urgent hearing for immediate relief. Having concluded the hearing in the matter on July 9, 2020, I now proceed to dispose of this writ petition together with CAN 3809 of 2020 by this common judgment and order.
(2.) The facts of this case, in so far as they are material to this writ petition, is circumscribed within a narrow compass and is encapsulated as follows: a) The late father of the petitioner was appointed as a ration dealer so being Fair Shop No. 40/BDY by the pertinent authority roughly five decades ago under the then West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 and the said dealership has been in operation since then, functioning from the premises at 146/148, G.T. Road, Sheoraphuly, Hooghly, (JL- 6, Mouza- Sheoraphuly). After the promulgation of the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "2003 Order"), the deceased father had also obtained the requisite license under the self-same 2003 Order, being renewed from time to time. b) However, the State superseded the 2003 Order by the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "2013 Order"), and accordingly, the petitioner's father secured a license thereunder on January 28, 2014 with a validity up until December 31, 2014. The petitioner's father however, passed intestate on August 25, 2014. On the same day, the Rationing Officer, Baidyabati (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No. 3") was informed of such a demise and another FPS dealer was deputed to serve the rationees in furtherance of continuity of service in the public distribution system. c) Immediately thereafter, on August 26, 2014, the petitioner made an application before the Respondent No. 3, praying for the grant of compassionate appointment apropos of the ration dealership under the license issued in favour of his deceased father and seeking information on any additional formalities that would be required to be complied with. d) It is the averment of the petitioner that based upon instructions issued by the Respondent No. 3, the petitioner made an application on October 13, 2014 before the Respondent No. 2, The Director of Rationing, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal, praying yet again, for the grant of ration dealership under the license issued in favour of his deceased father, solely on compassionate grounds. The petitioner also enclosed the mandated documents coupled with the original T.R. form 7 of INR 1,000/- in furtherance of compliance with the statutory application fees. e) Eliciting no response from the Respondent No. 2, upon the instructions of Respondent No. 3, the petitioner once again submitted all mandated documents with the additional copy of the license of the petitioner's deceased father on January 13, 2015. Thereafter, the petitioner avers several representations were made to seek information on the fate of his application but was met with the mundane and repetitive assurance that his application was under consideration by the State respondents, and subject to such approval, a new license would be issued in his favour. f) Despite these assurances, the petitioner received a bolt out of the blue five years later, when to his utter surprise on December 10, 2019, he was served with an order no. 121/DR/SSLC dated September 30, 2019 by the Respondent No. 2, which rejected the petitioner's application stating therein that the petitioner applied to the authorities on October 13, 2014 and therefore there was an inordinate delay of 49 days after the expiry of then licensee, the deceased father of the petitioner. g) Upon such receipt of order, the petitioner filed a representation on December 11, 2019 stating that the initial application was made on August 26, 2014 and the application dated October 13, 2014 was made in continuation thereafter subject to the instructions of the Respondent No. 3, and therefore, no delay can be attributed in this case. h) The application bearing CAN 3809 of 2020 goes onto further reveal, amidst the ongoing pandemic, the State respondents have now realized that a declaration of vacancy against the defunct dealership of the petitioner's deceased father ought to be processed.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the ground stated in the impugned order dated September 30, 2019 is patently erroneous for there had been no delay of 49 days in making an application for grant of such license, on the grounds of compassionate appointment as the records reflect that the petitioner had submitted the original application to the Respondent No. 3, well within the mandated period of thirty (30) days on August 26, 2014, a day immediately after the petitioner's father passed away.;