GANESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. DIRECTOR OF RATIONING & ORS.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
GANESH CHANDRA DAS
Director Of Rationing And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
Manash Nath Royaa, J. -
(1.)The petitioner, an unsuccessful candidate in the matter of appointment of a Retailer for A. R. Shop No. 3529, Obtained this Rule against an order dated Jan. 6, 1975, whereby the Respondent No. 5 was preferred for such appointment.
(2.)The Director of Rationing being the appropriate authority to appoint a retailer, in terms of his delegated authority under paragraph 22 of the West Bengal Rationing Order. 1964 thereinafter referred to as the said Order, invited applications on Feb. 25, 1975 in the prescribed form the candidates under the statutory rationing scheme in Jadaypore Sub-area (herein-after referred to as the said area), for a shop at Prince Golam Hossain Sha Road between Bikramgarh High School and Sisumala Vidayalaya. Such applications were further required to be submitted on or by March 22, 1975. The notice also indicated the qualifications for the candidates and the relevant conditions.
(3.)The petitioner and Respondent No. 5 were amongst the other applicants and the Rationing Officer, Jadavpore by a notice informed them that the premises offered by them would be inspected on July 25, 1975 and they were further requested to be present with documentary evidence of possession in respect of the shops as offered including other necessary evidence of Bank Account and Trade License. On such inspection, the shop offered by the petitioner was found to be unsuitable. Thereafter, the petitioner, in continuation of his application, made a representation to the Director of Rationing that he has further secured a good and much more spacious room at No. 66, Prince Golam Hossain Sha Road and requested him to approve the same. On such offer, the petitioner, on Aug. 19, 1975 was intimated about further inspection of the same. Such inspection, the petitioner has stated to have been completed by the Rationing Officer and the Chief Inspector concerned and he has further alleged that they were satisfied with the space which was so offered. The petitioner himself has stated in his petition that selection in the matter was required to be made by the Director of Rationing by virtue of his delegated authority in consultation with or on the recommendation of a Selection Board. He has, of course, contended that in his case the said Selection Board or its members never met and scrutinised the respective claims of the applicants. The Respondent No, 5 was however, by an order dated Jan. 6, 1975 (Annexure H) appointed the retailer for the said area provisionally for a period upto March 30, 1976 and it was made specifically clear that such appointment was purely temporary and was liable to be revoked at any time without giving any notice and without assigning any reason thereof.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.