ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) The writ petitioners are all sons and daughters of one Mahendra Nath Sarkar, who passed away on 21st March, 2005. Respondent nos. 9, 10 and 11 are also sons of said Mahendra Nath Sarkar, since deceased. He was a dealer under the Provisions of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order during his lifetime. On his death, the respondent no. 9 had staked his claim for continuing with the dealership. The practice being followed by the Food and Supplies Department, it appears in the event of death of a dealer, if all the legal heirs of the deceased person agree to fresh issue of the licence for the same dealership to one of them, the same is permitted. In this case, the respondent no. 9 had made an application supported by affidavits of his late mother and other brothers and sisters and on that strength fresh licence was issued in his favour. Initially the petitioners, after grant of such licence in favour of the respondent no. 9, filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 21769(W) of 2007 before this Court making certain allegations as regards the authenticity of the affidavits used by the said respondent. This Court was of the view that the dispute raised in that petition was in the nature of family dispute and because investigation into factual issues was necessary for adjudication of such dispute, the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S), Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur should have been the proper authority to take decision on such dispute.
(2.) The matter was heard by the said authority and by an order issued on 16th October, 2008, the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) found grant of licence to the respondent no. 9 to be in order. This finding was questioned by the mother of the petitioners as well as the petitioners themselves and this process went on for several months till a specific demand for justice was made on behalf of the said individuals by their learned Advocate in the month of February, 2009. Such demand for justice, however, yielded no positive response. Subsequently also representations were sent to the authorities. The grievance of the petitioners in this proceeding is that their representations have gone unresponded. They have approached this Court now challenging the legality of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller (F and S) on 16th October, 2008.
(3.) In my opinion, however, there has been significant delay in moving this writ petition. The petitioners became aware of the view of the Food and Supply Authorities on the legality of the process of issue of licence in favour of the respondent no. 9 in the month of October, 2008 but this writ petition has been filed only on 30th November, 2011. Mere making representations in such a situation cannot perpetuate a cause of action. In any event, in my opinion, since the petitioners have primarily questioned the authenticity of the affidavits by which his mother, brothers and sisters allegedly have given consent to grant of licence in his favour, the Sub-Divisional Controller is also not legally equipped to decide on such issues, which involve complex task of deciding upon authenticity of certain documents. For that purpose, evidence has to be led. It would be a Court of competent civil jurisdiction the most appropriate forum to deal with such issues to adjudicate on such dispute. In these circumstances, I choose to dismiss this writ petition for the reasons indicated above. In the event, however, the petitioners institute a civil suit, then the Court in which such suit is filed shall examine the claims of the petitioners on their own merit.;