DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is directed against a report dated March 17, 2010 issued by the District Controller (F&S), Murshidabad.
(2.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the District Controller (F&S), Murshidabad issued a Notification for appointment of M.R. Distributorship at Banjetia, Berhampore, Murshidabad by a Notification dated September 8, 2009. The petitioner participated in such selection process. The added respondent no. 8 also participated therein. The petitioner submitted his application dated October 5, 2009. In such application, the petitioner gave details of two godowns available to the petitioner and two bank accounts. He draws the attention of the Court to the application made by the petitioner dated October 5, 2009 as also the documents annexed with such application. He submits that, the rent receipt in respect of one godown as also the record of rights in respect of the godown owned by the petitioner were provided. The bank account details of two banks were also provided. Necessary Income Tax Clearance Certificate was submitted. He draws the attention of the Court to the impugned report dated March 17, 2010 in which the application of the petitioner was considered. He submits that, the authorities did not consider one of the godowns available to the petitioner. The rented godown was not considered by the authorities. The availability of the bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda was also not considered in such report. Consequently, he submits that, the decision making process stands faulted at least on the ground of perversity, if not being tainted with mala fide. He seeks setting aside of the impugned report. He submits that, given the passage of time, it would be appropriate that the Writ Court directs fresh selection process to be undertaken, in accordance with law.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 8 submits that, the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that, there are disputed questions of facts involved. He points out that, the report speaks of two godowns being available. He draws the attention of the Court to the contents of the impugned report and submits that, the report records that, the two godowns are insufficient for the purpose of carrying on a business of M.R. Distributorship as the petitioner is already engaged in carrying on different business from such godown. Moreover, the petitioner despite having a copy of the report did not challenge the contents of the same. He submits that, the Writ Court need not enter into contractual matters, particularly when question of grant of State largesse is involved.;