- (1.) THE dispute in these two writ petitions relate to appointment of a distributor for essential commodities in Gopinathpur in the district of Hooghly. At present, appointment of such distributors is guided by the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Supply) Control Order, 2003 (the 2003 Order). Applications for this vacancy however was invited in the month of February 1981. At that point of time, selection of distributors were made through procedures laid down in terms of executive instructions. Such distributorship was originally termed as M.R. Distributorship, and the same term continues to be used now also to describe such distributors. THE writ petitioner in C.R. NO. 9951(W) of 1982 is one Hiralal Saha who lost out in the selection process. After applications were invited for appointment of distributors, Dulal Chandra Maity, who is the respondent no. 6 in that writ petition and the petitioner in W.P. No. 32042(W) of 2008 was initially selected. I shall refer to the two writ petitioners as H and D respectively in the later part of this judgment. I propose to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment as the competing candidates for licence in respect of the said business are these two petitioners only, and there are many overlapping points involved in the two cases.
(2.) SELECTION of D has been challenged by H by filing the Writ Petition registered as C.R. No. 9951(W) of 1982. I shall refer to this proceeding henceforth as the first writ petition. The ground of challenge of Ds selection is that the latter had attracted disqualification specified in the application form itself, which prohibited applications by a relative of members of the Anchal Panchayat or Food Relief Committee. A copy of a notification, which appears to be in a standard form, has been annexed to the first writ petition, marked A. In the said standard form, the second part is entitled as Application Form, against which there are eight clauses. Clause 8 in such form stipulates that the application would not be accepted if the applicant is a member of the Anchal Panchayat or Food Relief Committee, or a relative of such members. Complaint of H is that D was the nephew of the upapradhan of Gopinathpur Anchal, being one Bata Krishna Pakira. At the initial stage, when this writ petition was moved, Rule was issued on 27th September 1982. An interim order was also passed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order passed by the authorities concerned appointing D as an M.R. Distributor. D had filed an application for vacating the interim order and it was allowed on 23rd November 1983. The interim order was accordingly vacated on that date. But later on, when the matter appeared for hearing, on 23rd July 1985, the interim order was reimposed in substance, as the respondent no. 2 therein, being the Sub-divisional Controller was directed not to make any final appointment in respect of that distributorship except on ad-hoc basis, unless any third party was appointed. The writ petition again came up for hearing on 10th July 2000, and on that date none of the parties appeared before the Court when the matter was called on. The petition was dismissed for default, interim order vacated and Rule was discharged. It was turn of D now to raise grievance for not being given actual appointment in spite of dismissal of the writ petition. He applied before this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 16531(W) of 2008. Ds prayer in this writ petition was to give effect to his selection. In this writ petition however H was not impleaded as a party respondent. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 8 August 2008 with the following directions:- In view of such specific submissions made on behalf of the State on instruction, I choose to dispose of this writ petition at this stage only by directing the concerned authority to issue appropriate order for petitioners appointment as distributor under the 2003 Order provided the petitioner complies with all the procedural formalities. Such exercise should be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. For this purpose, the petitioner shall produce the necessary documents before the appropriate authority and cooperate with them. With this direction, the writ petition shall stand disposed of. Since this writ petition is being disposed of without filing of any affidavit to which arrangement the learned Advocate for the State ha agreed to, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have not been admitted. There shall, however, no order as to costs.
(3.) IN pursuance of such direction of this Court, D was directed to appear before the District Controller with the requisite documents. The documents which D was required to produce, as it appears from a memorandum dated 25th September 2008 issued by the District Controller, a copy of which had been made Annexure P12 to W.P. No. 32042(W) of 2008, were :- 1. Proof of Identity like Voter card, Ration card etc. 2. Order of S.C.F. & S. Hooghly Sadar regarding selection as M.R. Distributor. 3. Possession of the godown bearing Plot no.-2700, JL. No.-43, Khatian No.-404, Mauza-Gopinagar like land deed, Parcha etc. 4. Financial Capacity. Ds claim for appointment however was rejected by the District Controller by an order passed on 8 November 2008 on the ground that he could not produce any document regarding the godown and his balance in his account at that point of time was Rs.9,05,800/-, as it appears from copy of the order, (Annexure P3 to W.P. No. 32042(W) of 2008). Before such hearing, an enquiry was also conducted concerning Ds eligibility status, and I shall deal with this enquiry in the subsequent paragraphs. In course of hearing, D was required to produce documents relating to possession of godown bearing plot no. 2700, JL No.-43, Khatian No.-404, Mouza Gopinathpur like land deed Parcha etc. and also enquiry was made of his financial capacity. The District Controller examined the case of D on the basis of his selection in 1982 and the particulars of godown related to his disclosure made on possession of godown in that year only. The District Controller also wanted reappraisal of his financial capacity pertaining to the year 1982 only. This appears from the ground of rejection contained in the order of the District Controller, which are:- Regarding para-III Sri Maity could not produce any documents regarding possession of the godown bearing plot no. 2700, JL No.-43, as mentioned in the selection letter issued by SC (F&S), Hooghly Sadar vide memo no. 802/SC(F&S)/82 of 05.03-82. Sri Maity further stated that the said godown was hired by him and that this rented godown was vacated by him in the year 1985 and handled over to the landlord. That is why the said godown as mentioned in the selection letter is to longer possessed by him. He could not produce any supporting documents for the said rented godown from the year 1982 to 1985 as stated by him. Regarding para IV- Sri Maity submitted a bank statement of SBI Chinsurah showing Savings Bank Account bearing no. 30491148079 in the name of Dulal Chandra Maity of Vill.-Narayanpur, P.O.- Tarakeshwar, Dist.-Hooghly. The present balance of the A/c is Rs.905800/- as per letter of Chief Manager of SBI, Chinsurah dated 16.09.08. Sri Maity stated that this savings bank A/c bearing no. 30491148079 was opened by him on 15-09-08 and that he can not produce any document regarding financial capacity of the year, 1982, that is the year of selection as MR distributor. It is seen from the above that item no. 1 and 2 was supported by the documents but item no. 3- there is no supporting document lime landdeed, parcha etc. and that the said godown is no longer in his possession which was confirmed by Sri Maity during hearing as well as during enquiry by CI of SC (P&S), Hooghly, Sadar. That Sri Maity has acquired another godown at a separate place which cannot be considered at this stage. Regarding item no. iv- there is no proof of financial solvency at the material period (1982). However, the letter of Chief Manger and Personal hearing of the petitioner show that an SBI A/c has been opened by him only 15 (fifteen) days ago which cannot be considered at this stage.;