ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI,J. - (1.) The writ petitioner being unsuccessful in getting licence to run M.R. dealership has come up before this Court and questioned granting of such licence in favour of the private respondent no.11. Licence was granted in the year 1994. The writ petitioner was aggrieved against such granting of licence to the respondent no.11 and he moved a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.6241(W) of 1994 praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to proceed in accordance with the recommendation given by the Area Inspector and to appoint the petitioner as M.R. dealer for the vacancy, ignoring the motivated resolution of Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity of Raghunandanpur Panchayat Samity dated 9th November, 1993. It was submitted that interim order was passed and sometime in the year 2005 the said writ petition was dismissed in default. The writ petitioner did not take any step for restoration. Now after 17 years this is the second writ petition filed by the writ petitioner questioning the issuance licence in favour of the private respondent no.11 on the plea that the recommendation of the Sthayee Samity is not proper and the Sthayee Samity has no power to recommend and therefore, granting of such licence in favour of the respondent no.11 should be cancelled. It was submitted that as per the report of the concerned Assistant Inspector or Inspector he is entitled to get licence. He has prayed for quashing the recommendation of Sthayee Samity.
(2.) Mr. Das, learned Counsel representing for the private respondent submits that the cause of action arose in the year 1994 and this is the second writ petition filed by the writ petitioner after about 17 years on that ground the writ petition must fail. He further submitted that the recommendation of the Sthayee Samity was there and in the earlier writ petition the present applicant took a plea in that regard also. He pointed out that from the copy of the writ petition it would appear in ground No.7 the petitioner took this plea that the Sthayee Samity cannot recommend the name of any one and they have no locus stand to take any such resolution, etc. Mr. Das points out that the copy of the writ petition which was produced by the applicant will make it clear that this ground was there in the earlier writ petition and prayers were also made in that regard. He submits that the writ petitioner is taking a chance after about 17 years and the contention of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is not correct that he has not taken this plea in the earlier writ petition. He submits that in the earlier writ petition a prayer for quashing of the resolution was there, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed. The writ petitioner has not come up with clean hand and as such he is not entitled to get any relief.
(3.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. It appears that the writ petitioner moved the earlier writ petition in the year 1994 and in that writ petition the question of resolution and/or recommendation of the Sthayee Samity was taken and he did not proceed with that matter which was dismissed in the year 2005. The writ petitioner once again after about 7 years from the date of dismissal of the first writ petition has filed this writ petition thereby taking a chance if he can get success by preferring this writ application. It appears that the conduct of the writ petitioner is not proper. The writ petition is also not maintainable on the ground of inordinate delay.;