RANJIT KUMAR,J. - (1.) The Court: The petitioner has challenged the notification dated July 14, 2017 issued by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the notification has laid down new criteria as eligibility for appointment of wholeseller which are contrary to the statutory scheme laid down under the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance & Control) Order, 2013 (in short "West Bengal Control Order of 2013").
(2.) By referring to paragraph 17(a) of the West Bengal Control Order of 2013, Mr. Shaktinath Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that eligibility criteria for engagement of wholeseller must be in conformity with the eligibility criteria laid down in the application form A2. He further submits that the eligibility criteria for engagement of wholeseller under the impugned notification are not only contrary to the statutory scheme disclosed in the application form A2, but also violative of the fundamental right enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The specific submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that the specification of the godown and the bank balance of Rs.50,00,000/ as working capital laid down as eligibility criteria are contrary to the contents of the application form A2 and as such the petitioner as an individual is unable to participate in the process of selection of wholeseller, though the petitioner is an intending applicant.
(3.) Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Advocate General representing the State respondents contends that no right is accrued in favour of the petitioner as an individual to challenge the notification and as such the present writ application is not maintainable in law. He further submits that the notice inviting application for engagement of wholeseller may contain eligibility criteria even when the same are not disclosed in the application form A2. The further submission of learned Advocate General is that the particulars to be disclosed in the application form A2 are not eligibility criteria for engagement of the wholeseller, but the information to be collected by the authority concerned to decide whether eligibility criteria are fulfilled for engagement of wholeseller. According to the learned Advocate General, there is no inconsistency in prescribing the eligibility criteria of having Rs.50,00,000/ as working capital in case of unemployed youth as self employed youth will be considered as unemployed youth when the said self employed youth is not employed under any authority or private organisation. He has relied on a Division Bench decision of our High Court in " Baba Lokenath Enterprises v. State of West Bengal " reported in 2004 (4) CHN 371 in support of his contention.;