Subrata Talukdar, J. - (1.) THE short point that this Court is required to answer in this writ petition is whether the order impugned dated 28th April, 2015 passed by the Director of Rationing, Government of West Bengal (for short DOR) is legally sustainable or not. By the order impugned the DOR refused to appoint the petitioner No. 2 as a Fair Price Shop Dealer (for short FPS) on the ground that the petitioner was not a person of unimpeachable character and integrity.
(2.) THE DOR took notice of the fact that a criminal case being CGR No. 2506 of 2002 is pending against the petitioner No. 2 under Sections 420, 468 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC). Further noticing that each of the three Sections of the IPC as noted above relate to serious offences of cheating, forgery and dishonestly receiving stolen property which are all cognizable and non -bailable, the DOR came to the conclusion that it is necessary for the appointing authority to consider whether the appointee has acceptable moral antecedents. Sri Debabrata Saha Roy, Ld. Counsel for the writ petitioners strongly submits that by order dated 12th September, 2014 in WP 19578(W) of 2011 a Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court was pleased to direct the competent respondent authority to consider the claim of the present petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds to the FPS dealership of the original dealer, since deceased, under the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution (Maintenance & Control) Control Order, 2003 (for short the 2003 Control Order).. Therefore, Sri Saha Roy submits that the DOR patently fell into error by revisiting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on the platform of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Supply) Control Order, 2013 (for short the 2013 Control Order) when, the application of such order stood specifically excluded by the order of this Court dated 12th September, 2014 (supra).
(3.) ALSO arguing that while applying the 2003 Control Order in respect of the appointment of the petitioner No. 2, Sri Saha Roy points out that the DOR was required to take notice of the Memo dated 10th April, 1991 issued by the Deputy Director (S), Directorate of District Distribution, Procurement and Supply (for short DDP & S). By the Memo of 10th April, 1991 it has been made clear that the mere charge of involvement of the applicant or the fact that a criminal case against the applicant is pending may not be a ground for refusing to grant/renew a license. A license may be refused to be granted/renewed if the applicant is found convicted of an offence relating to essential commodities or, if such appointment is likely to impede the supply and distribution of essential commodities by the appointee.;