- (1.) The contest is primarily between the writ petitioner and the third respondent. It is over distributorship rights granted by the first respondent to the third respondent to market LPG cylinders in the Digha area of West Bengal. That is how the first respondent comes into the picture. That is also how this writ is sought to be maintained on the plea that public law elements are involved. The third respondent was awarded the distributorship on 20th August, 2011, for five years. The writ petitioner thinks that she ought to have been granted this distributorship. She asks for cancellation of the distributorship of the third respondent and award of the same in her favour.
(2.) Before I come to the facts, the history of the proceeding is to be recounted. On 6th May, 2011, some three months prior to grant of the distributorship in favour of the third respondent, the present writ application was moved in this court with a prayer for interim order. At least, at the interim stage, the validity of the panel of candidates for distributorship prepared by the first respondent on 5th February, 2010, appears to have been challenged. At that time learned counsel for the third respondent submitted in Court that his client had already been appointed as a distributor. It seems that the court did not want to disturb this status quo. No interim order was passed. Directions were made for filing of affidavits.
(3.) The writ petitioner did not accept the order. She filed an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. It was heard on 4th April, 2012 by the bench presided over by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Appellate Court observed that the third respondent had already started the business of distributorship. This prevailed upon the court so as not to disturb the refusal of interim order made by the learned trial judge. The writ was sent back to the trial Court by a judgment and order made on that day.;