- (1.) Order dated 5.5.2015 passed by respondent no.2 rejecting the objection of petitioner to grant of licence in favour of respondent no.9 as a stamp vendor by respondent no.4 has been assailed. By order dated 14.9.2014 in W.P. No.26231(W) of 2014 this Court directed the respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner against the grant of stamp vendor's licence to respondent no.9 and to pass a reasoned order thereon. Pursuant to such direction, the parties were heard and by a reasoned order the objection as to grant of such licence to respondent no.9 was turned down.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew my attention to a circular issued by the State Government bearing no. 2894(17)-F.T. dated 22nd August, 1997 laying down guidelines in the matter of grant of new vending licence for sale of non-postal stamps. He further drew my attention to Clause 2 of the said Guidelines and submitted that no adequate advertisement was made in respect of the vacancy and, therefore, the grant of licence to respondent no.4 was liable to be set aside on such score alone. Learned Counsel for the State submits that in view of the demand of the local people as two of the licenced stamp vendors had discontinued business such appointment has not been granted to respondent no.9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.9 submits that she had made an application for such appointment and in view of her physical ailments the said appointment was granted. She further submitted that respondent no.9 has requisite qualification for such appointment.
(3.) For adjudication of the aforesaid issue, Clause 2 of the aforesaid Guidelines may be reproduced hereunder: "2) Wherever, the Collector is of the opinion that granting of new vending licence is necessary in a particular premises after following the guidelines pointed at para (i) above, he will notify the vacancy locally, in the notice boards of the important Government offices and also semi-Govt. offices like Zilla Parishads/Municipalities etc. to select suitable candidates". A perusal of the said aforesaid clause shows that it was incumbent on the respondent authority to give adequate publicity as to the existence of the vacancy in the manner as provided therein before the said respondent authority could proceed to make the appointment. Admittedly, no such advertisement of the vacancy which had come into being due to discontinuance of business by two out of three stamp vendors in Ranaghat Court. It was incumbent on the respondent authority to adopt the aforesaid wholesome procedure of wide publicity as to the existence of the vacancy before consideration of the application of respondent no.9 herein. It is beyond the pale of judicial controversy that any allotment of largesse be it of licence or otherwise is to be done by the State through transparent process after due advertisement. Clause 2 of the aforesaid guidelines, in fact, lays down such requirement of wide publicity and non-compliance to the same vitiates the entire exercise. On such premise, even if it is accepted that respondent no.9 was otherwise a deserving candidate, her selection cannot be sustained as adequate publicity of the aforesaid vacancy was mandatory to ensure participation of other equally, if not more.;