SHEKHAR B.SARAF,J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the State Respondents which rejected the transfer of FPS and kerosene oil licenses from the petitioner no. 1 to the petitioner 2 on compassionate grounds; the primary ground of rejection being that the degree of relationship of the petitioner no. 2 is not permissible under the definition of 'family members' as stated in the notification dated March 7, 2017, issued under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Orders of 2013.
(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) Nimai Chand Parihari (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner no. 1') is the father-in-law of Smt. Putulrani Ghosh Parihari (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner no. 2'). The petitioner no. 2 is the widow of the predeceased son of petitioner no. 1. b) While FPS and kerosene oil dealership licenses were originally granted to the petitioner no. 1, due to ailments arising out of old age, the petitioner no. 1 furnished a relevant application to the State authorities for the transfer of these licenses to his son, prior to his demise. This application was both considered and accepted by the authorities. c) However, post such transfer of these licenses in favour of Subhabrata Parihari, the son of the petitioner no. 1, he was murdered by Maoists during an ill-fated incident in the Maoist infested area of the Jungle Mahal region on October 19, 2010. Post the untimely demise of the son of petitioner no. 1 and considering the peculiarity of the circumstances, both licenses were yet again transferred in the name of the petitioner no. 1. d) For reasons yet again attributable to old-age and multiple illnesses, the petitioner no. 1 made a representation dated January 8, 2018 requesting the Sub-Divisional Controller (F&S), Jhargram (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 6) to transfer the aforesaid dealership (comprising licenses for both the fair price shop as well as kerosene oil) in favour of the petitioner no. 2, the only other surviving heir in the family as the daughter of the petitioner no. 1 is married and continues to reside in her matrimonial home. A similar representation seeking such transfer was also filed before the Respondent No.6, by the petitioner no. 2. e) While no action was initiated on these representations by the State respondents, the petitioner no. 1 filed another follow-up representation dated July 18, 2018 before the District Controller (F&S), Jhargram (hereinafter referred to as Respondent No. 5), seeking the transfer of licenses in favour of petitioner no. 2. Subsequently, the Respondent No. 5 instructed the Respondent No. 6 to proceed with the formalities involved for such transfer while considering it as an exceptional case. f) While fresh documents were submitted by both petitioners upon instructions received from Respondent No. 6, the Respondent No. 6 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. g) Despite such a recommendation, no further action was taken by the Respondent No. 5. The petitioner no. 2 was compelled to furnish another representation dated February 14, 2019 before the District Magistrate, Jhargram seeking the transfer of both licenses in her favour on a compassionate basis, in place of petitioner no. 1. Based on such representation, the District Magistrate, Jhargram vide memo dated April 2, 2019 requested the Principal Secretary (F&S Department) to initiate the sought transfer proceedings on compassionate grounds. h) Subsequently, the petitioners received a memo bearing no. 1917/1(4)/FMR/13-L-51/2014 (Pt-1) dated July 2, 2019 issued by the Deputy Director (License), Directorate of DDP&S which conveyed the State Government‟s decision rejecting the plea of transfer of both licenses to the petitioner no. 2 on the ground that the relationship of 'daughter-in-law' does not come under the purview of 'family members' as per the notification dated March 7, 2017. i) Aggrieved by above memo dated July 2, 2017 and the non-inclusion of a widow of a predeceased son within the definition of family members in the notification dated March 7, 2017 and memorandum dated January 15, 2020, the petitioners 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 as well as seeking a declaration stating the inclusion of daughter-in-law of a predeceased son within the definition of 'family members'.
(3.) It was also brought to my attention, that while this petition remained in a state of pendency, petitioner no. 1 has also passed away. Mr. Saha Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that while the petitioners‟ representations were kept in a state of pendency, the State Government has amended the previous Control Order of 2013. Post such amendment, the widow of a pre-deceased son now stands incorporated in the definition of 'family members' in the new notification dated December 16, 2020. Mr. Saha Roy also argued that given the delay caused by the inactivity of the respondents in processing the above representations, the same may be considered in continuation under the new notification dated December 16, 2020.;