- (1.) THE Court:-The petitioner in this WP under art. 226 dated June 7, 2010 is seeking the following principal relief:- "b) Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 7 the Inspector (Food and Supplies, Tehatta) to act strictly in terms of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food and Supplies, Tehatta) Vide Memo No. 500(3) SCF and S/T dated 22.9.09 and to allot kerosene Oil 50: 50 basis between the petitioner and Md. Farid Mondal. " The memo dated September 22, 2009 referred to in prayer (b) is at p.51 of the WP. The relevant part of the memo is quoted below:- "As per order of the Hon 'ble High Court, Kolkata and the District Magistrate, Nadia you are directed and ordered to take initiative step for issuing K. Oil allotment order equally (50:50) between Abdul Gani Mondal, K. Oil dealer and Farid Mondal, F.P.S. dealer cum K. Oil dealer from the next week without fail. This order may be treated as most urgent to avoid further litigation. "
(2.) THE petitioner is a dealer within the meaning of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The eighth respondent, Md. Farid Mondal, is a Fair Price Shop owner within the meaning of the relevant Control Order and also a dealer within the meaning of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The petitioner 's case is that though pursuant to the order of the Sub-divisional Controller dated September 22, 2009 he and Farid were and are to get equal kerosene allotment, Farid started getting a higher allotment from November 2009. Mr. Ray appearing for the petitioner has argued as follows. In view of a previous order of the Subdivisional Controller dated January 18, 2007 and the order dated September 22, 2009, both of which were passed pursuant to orders of this Court, and the existing guidelines issued by the Director of Consumer Goods, the petitioner and Farid were and are to get equal allotment of kerosene. Mr. Agarwal appearing for the State has submitted as follows. A large number of ration card holders allotted to the petitioner were not taking supply of kerosene from the petitioner. Hence decision was taken to allot him the quantity of kerosene needed for supplying the card holders actually taking supply from him. The petitioner wanted and wants allotment of a quantity needed for supplying all the card holders with permission to sell the quantity not lifted by the card holders to the non-card holders. Mr. Saha Roy appearing for Farid has submitted as follows. There is nothing that entitled the petitioner to a permanent kerosene allotment equal to Farid 's kerosene allotment. It is wrong to say that the orders of the Sub-divisional Controller or any guidelines entitled the petitioner to a permanent allotment equal to Farid 's allotment. Kerosene is to be allotted to the dealers according to actual requirement of the card holders and availability. I have not been shown any guidelines that entitled or entitles the petitioner to an allotment of kerosene needed for supplying all the 1674 ration card holders allotted to him, even if they all were not actually taking or do not take kerosene supply from him. The petitioner 's licence to trade in kerosene as a dealer within the meaning of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 did not and does not entitle him to seek an allotment of the quantity of kerosene needed for supplying all the card holders allotted to him with a permission to sell the quantity not lifted by the allotted card holders to non-card holders. The Public Distribution System to be run under the Control Order cannot be used for such a purpose. The actual requirement of kerosene for the allotted card holders of a dealer is to be assessed by the Sub-divisional Controller concerned, the competent authority under the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968; and for the purpose he is empowered to give necessary directions to the Inspector concerned. Hence an order cannot be passed directing allotment needed for all the card holders. Nor can an order be passed by this Court restraining the authorities under the Control Order from reducing or increasing the number of card holders allotted to the petitioner; for such an order, in effect, will curtail the statutory powers of the authorities to reduce or increase the card holders allotted to the kerosene dealers under their control in the interests of the Public Distribution System. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the allotment order dated November 12, 2009 or to pass an order directing the Sub-divisional Controller to allot the petitioner kerosene for all time to come according to the order dated September 22, 2009, or an order directing allotment of a quantity needed for supplying all the allotted card holders, or an order restraining the Sub-divisional Controller from withdrawing any allotted card holder from the petitioner. For these reasons, the WP is dismissed. If because of interim orders in this WP excess supply has been made to the petitioner and the excess stock is still available, then the Sub-divisional Controller will be free to order its disposal according to law for serving the interests of the Public Distribution System. No costs.;