P.K.Mukherjee, J. - (1.) This writ petition was originally moved on behalf of M/s. B. K. Roy (P) Limited, challenging a communication issued by Manager Sales, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), refusing the request of the writ petitioner to transfer the Kerosene Oil dealership, in favour of the petitioner's sister concern M/s. Hooghly Petroleum Products Trading Company (P) Ltd, and on August 2, 1988, this Court having heard Mr. Dhruba Kumar Mukherjee for the writ petitioner directed the petitioner to serve the copies of the writ petition upon the District Magistrate, Hooghly being respondent No.4 and the District Controller of Food and Supplies, Hooghly being respondent No.5 and respondents Nos. 7 and 8, as well as in the office of the Government Pleader.
(2.) In view of urgency, after dispensing requirement Rule 27A of the Rules framed under Article 226, this Court further passed an interim order that pending licence in favour of the writ petitioner, in respect of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order), should not be cancelled, in the mean time.
(3.) Thereafter, the writ petition appeared in the presence of Amal Kr. Basu Chowdhury learned Advocate appearing for the State Respondents on September 20, 1988 and necessary directions for Affidavit had been passed by this Court and Affidavit of service was filed which was kept on record. Subsequently, on March 2, 1989, the matter was taken up for orders for consideration of grant of appropriate directions and/or order pending final decision of the writ petition, as in Paragraph 19 of the writ petition, the petitioner had categorically stated that during recent discussions, the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Hooghly, having expressed the view that they were ready and willing to renew the licence now held by the petitioner company M/s. B. K. Roy Private Limited, for the next year because the management remains the same. But as M/s. Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Limited, respondent Nos. 6 to 8, has raised an objection, the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Hooghly, expressed the view that at any rate the District Authorities, Hooghly have the authority to grant licence de novo in favour of the subsidiary company of the petitioner No. 1 company, if and when such application in form C is filed, provided, no objection is raised by the said Corporation, being respondent No.6.;