Shekhar B. Saraf, J. - (1.) Apropos this writ petition no. 18261(W) of 2017, I had the opportunity to extensively hear the matter on February 13 of this year, with the directions that note of arguments be filed by both parties to this lis. In spite of the matter being adjourned for three weeks, 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. When this Court reconvened on December 7, 2020 and the matter was taken up for consideration, the hearing stood concluded in the matter.
(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 grandmother of the petitioner, Smt. Usharani Debnath was appointed as a ration dealer, being Fair Shop No. 7, by the pertinent authority under the Krishnanagar Sub-Division. The petitioner is the son of the pre-deceased son of the deceased ration dealer as named above. b) For reasons attributable to old-age and multiple illnesses, the deceased grandmother of the petitioner during her lifetime made a representation dated April 8, 2010 requesting the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S), Krishnanagar (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 5) to transfer the aforesaid dealership (comprising licenses for both the fair price shop as well as kerosene oil) in favour of the petitioner. c) Based on this representation dated April 8, 2010, the Respondent No. 5 directed the Inspector (F & S) to proceed with an enquiry and submit a report on the same. Based on such enquiry, a report was submitted which favourably recommended such transfer of dealership to the petitioner. Thereafter, the entire case file was forwarded to the District Controller (F & S) (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 4) for a favourable recommendation which was in turn transferred to the Director DDP & S (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 3). d) Despite the completion of all the requisite formalities by the grandmother of the petitioner, no further action was taken by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the petitioner's grandmother preferred another representation dated December 31, 2012 which was received by the office of the Respondent No. 5, yet again seeking the transfer of both licenses in favour of the petitioner. e) However, during the pendency of both these representations, the petitioner's grandmother passed away on April 22, 2014. Pending consideration of both the representations dated April 8, 2010 and December 31, 2012, the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereafter "2003 Order") was repealed and was superseded by the promulgation of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 (hereafter "2013 Order"). f) The petitioner made a fresh application under the provisions of the 2013 Order based on instructions received from the Respondent No. 5. While the petitioner's case did not fall within the purview of the 2013 Order and attracted the 2003 Order, an application in the prescribed format dated April 28, 2014 under the 2013 Order was submitted by the petitioner in continuation of the representations dated April 8, 2010 and December 31, 2012. g) After the expiry of six years from the date of the original representation that was filed on April 8, 2010 and not to mention the multiple representations which went answered, the Respondent No. 3 issued a memo no. 799(2) FMR/13 L-63/2014 (Part-I) dated February 17, 2016 to the Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, stating that the engagement of the petitioner could not be considered on compassionate grounds as the applicant/petitioner's degree of relationship with his grandmother did not fall under the purview of "family member" as defined under Clause 2(m) of the 2013 Order. h) The Respondent No. 5 vide memo no. 305/SCF & S/KGR/16 dated March 30, 2016 explained in detail the reason for the applicant's case for consideration under compassionate appointment as only three legal heirs survived on date, which was inclusive of the petitioner. The Respondent No. 5 also clarified that the petitioner's mother and brother had both furnished No-Objection Certificates in favour of the petitioner, making this case suitable for consideration by the Respondents. i) Additionally, based on an RTI query filed by the petitioner seeking to know the status of his application, the Respondent No. 5 vide memo no. 634/SCF & S/KGR/2017 dated June 9, 2017 intimated that the petitioner could not be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds as the applicant's degree of relationship with his grandmother did not fall under the purview of "family member" as defined under Clause 2(m) of the 2013 Order. j) Aggrieved by the persistent delay in the consideration of the representations dated April 8, 2010 and December 31, 2012 and the subsequent rejection which was erroneously processed by relying on the 2013 Order as opposed to the 2003 Order which was applicable in this case, the petitioner invoked this Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the propriety of the memo no. 634/SCF & S/KGR/2017 dated June 9, 2017.
(3.) Mr. Saha Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner's deceased grandmother had made the representations dated April 8, 2010 and December 31, 2012 seeking the transfer of both her licenses in favour of her grandson, the petitioner, on medical grounds much prior to the implementation of the 2013 Order which had come into force on August 8, 2013. Mr. Saha Roy also argued that since provisions of the then 2003 Order was applicable to the petitioner's case, the delay caused by the indolence of the respondents in processing the above representations should not result in adverse consequences for the petitioner.;