Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) This is an unusual writ petition in which the order in W.P. No.19618 (W) of 2004 passed by this Court on 18th June, 2008 has been challenged. I shall henceforth describe this writ petition as the earlier writ petition. In that order, I had directed the respondent No.6 to dispose of the application of the writ petitioner therein dated 13th April, 2004 in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order. The prayer in the writ petition was or consideration of the application of the petitioner therein for being appointed as a dealer under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 and also as a dealer under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The prayer was made for consideration of the writ petitioner's case therein in accordance with a circular issued by the food and supplies authorities dated 28th February, 2008. This circular provides for engagement of certain specified near relations of a deceased dealer or a dealer who is physically incapacitated, as dealers in the place of their predecessors.
(2.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner's case is that the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 19618 (W) of 2004 could not take benefit of the said circular as the deceased dealer had no relationship with the writ petitioner therein. The dealer whose death appears to have created the vacancy is the father of the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. This fact is not in dispute. In the earlier writ petition, the claim was made by the writ petitioner on the strength of his predecessor being real owner of the business of the father of the writ petitioner in the present writ petition. It was the case of the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition that the money for running the business of dealership was extended by the predecessor of the writ petitioner therein and an agreement for running the business of dealership was executed on a partnership basis.
(3.) Preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the present writ petition. It was submitted by Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate for respondent No.7, who was the writ petitioner in the earlier writ petition that an order of coordinate bench cannot be challenged in a subsequent writ petition.;