- (1.) THE Court : The subject-matter of the writ petition are two Memos dated January 11, 2012 and January 17, 2012 which have been annexed to the petition as Annexures P-7 and P-9 respectively.
(2.) THE petitioner no. 1 was appointed an M.R. Distributor and was granted licence on September 6, 2010 under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003. One distributor namely M/s. Nimai Enterprises failed to renew its licence, therefore, the dealers tagged with the said distributor were temporarily tagged with another distributor i.e., M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala which is the respondent no. 6 herein. The licence of M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala was suspended in August, 2011. The dealers of M/s. Nimai Enterprises were now tagged with the petitioner no. 1 with promise that this would continue till new appointment is made against the defunct distributorship. M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala filed two writ petitions in this court. The second petition is more relevant for our purpose. In that petition this court on October 13, 2011 inter alia directed to revoke the suspension order but it was made clear that the same would not prevent the authorities to decide this show-cause notice on its merits and pass an appropriate order. The petitioner no. 1 was served with a Memo dated January 11, 2012 issued by the respondent no. 4 herein directing the respondent no. 5 to tag the dealers of Arsha Block with the distributorship of M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala allegedly in terms of the order passed by this court. By the said order the petitioner no. 1 was directed to supply the M. R. Commodities on account of M/s. Nimai Enterprises to M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala. The petitioner insisted that no such order was passed in the writ petition being WP 837 of 2011. Subsequently, it was found that M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala moved another writ petition and obtained an order of revocation of suspension. The petitioners brought the aforesaid facts to the concerned respondents and other authorities and requested them to withdraw the Memo dated January 11, 2012. The petitioners' grievance is that without considering their case the respondent no. 4 had issued another Memo dated January 17, 2012 whereby the authority once again directed to retag the temporarily tagged dealers of M/s. Nimai Enterprises with M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala. The petitioner no. 2 made a representation and requested the respondent no. 4 to consider his letter dated January 16, 2012 to be given effect to the two Memos impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent no. 4 had expressed his inability to consider the same as the said Memo had been issued under the direction of his higher authority.
(3.) THE petitioners have challenged the said Memos on various grounds particularly on the ground that no such order was passed by this court in WP 837 of 2011. According to the petitioners the dealers of the defunct distributorship of M/s. Nimai Enterprises were tagged with the petitioner no. 1 with a promise that the same would remain tagged till new appointment was to be made against such defunct distributorship and by issuing the impugned orders the authorities had acted against the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The petitioners have also challenged this on the ground of biasness. On behalf of the respondents nos. 1 to 5 an affidavit-in- opposition has been filed. It has been the case of the respondents that M/s. Kundu Enterprises was granted a licence for the purpose of lifting food grains and to deliver the same to the dealers tagged. The respondent no. 6 preferred a writ petition in the year 2011 and this court directed the Chief Inspector of Food and Supplies, Purulia, to take steps with regard to the seized articles on the basis of the report filed under Section 6(a) and 6(b) of the Essential Commodities Act. The respondent no. 6 filed another writ petition in the same year and this court had passed an order revoking the order of suspension. As such the respondent no. 6 was re-tagged with 114 dealers which were de- tagged earlier. In compliance with the order passed by this court in WP 837 of 2011 the respondent no. 4 issued a Memo. to the respondent no. 5 directing him to tag the dealers of Arsha Block at Sirkabad. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. A partner of the respondent no. 6, i.e., M/s. P. D. Jhunjhunwala, has affirmed an affidavit. Their stand is that the respondent no. 6 is an appointed distributor for distribution of rationed articles amongst the dealers tagged with the firm. In spite of the order of this court revoking the suspension of the respondent no. 6 dealers of Arsha Block were not re-tagged with the said respondent but subsequently on an application of the said respondent the dealers of Arsha Block were re-tagged. The main attack of the writ petitioners is the order dated January 17, 2012 primarily on the ground that dealers temporarily tagged with the writ petitioners cannot be de-tagged for tagging with other distributors on temporary basis.;