SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) The short point involved in the matter whether the proceedings could be declared as abandoned when admittedly the authority failed to proceed as per Paragraph -31 (c) proviso of Control Order, 2013. Fact of the Case
(2.) The petitioners ' case in brief is as follows : - This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent no. 4 under his memo no. 718/DCM/Purba/15 dated February 20, 2015. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner was directed to show cause with regard to commitment of irregularities in course of running his M.R. Distributorship in Bhupatinagar -II, District -Purba Medinipur. By virtue of the order impugned, the functioning of M.R, Distributorship was suspended. 2(i). It appears that similar show cause notice cum suspension order was passed on February 10, 2015. The said notice was challenged on the ground that the basis of passing of that order was an enquiry report which was not supplied to the petitioner. Secondly, there was formation of an opinion in connection with the provisions of Paragraph 31 (B) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance of Control order), 2013 and thirdly, it appears from the language said notice that the show cause notice cum -suspension that order was passed forming a final opinion at the time of issuing show cause notice. On the prayer made on behalf of the State respondents that leave might be granted to withdraw the above show cause notice allowing them to proceed afresh in accordance with law the writ petition was disposed of. 2(ii). The Hon 'ble Court by an order dated 26th February, 2015 was interalia pleased to direct the petitioners to give written reply to the impugned show cause notice but at the same time the Hon 'ble Court refused to pass any order of stay of operation of the suspension of the petitioners ' distributorship. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 26th February, 2015 the petitioners ' preferred an appeal before the Hon 'ble Appeal Court and the Hon 'ble Appeal Court by judgment dated 4th August, 2015 being prima facie satisfied was pleased to stay of the operation of the suspension in M.R. Distributor licence in question bearing No. MDN (E) -CONT -834. Some relevant portion of the said order dated 4th August, 2015 is quoted below : - ''For the reasons discussed herein above, we are of the opinion that a strong prima facie case has been made out for staying the operation of the suspension order of the M.R. Distributor Licence of the appellants pending final dispose of the writ petition. We are however, also of the opinion that the issues raised in the writ petition should be decided expeditiously. Therefore, we request the Learned Single Judge to decide the writ petition as early as possible and preferably on or before 30th September, 2015. Pending disposal of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellants herein, we also stay the operation of the order of suspension in respect of the M.R. Distributor Licence in question bearing No. MDN(E) -CONT -834. We however, make it clear that any observations made by us hereinbefore are purely tentative in nature and the learned Single Judge should not be influenced by the same under any circumstances while deciding the writ petition on merits. '' 2 (iii). Since despite stay of operation of the suspension order by the Hon 'ble Appeal Court the authority failed to allow the petitioner to resume their distributorship business, therefore, the petitioners without finding any alternative were compelled to file a contempt application before the Hon 'ble Appeal Court and in the contempt proceedings petitioners were allowed to resume their business. Accordingly the contempt petition was dropped.
(3.) Submissions of the Learned Advocates: Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners strongly argued that in respect of show cause notice admittedly there was no stay, in spite of that the District Controller failed to proceed with the same thereby abandoned the proceedings by efflux of time.;