Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Two appeals being FMA 85 of 2019 (Udyog Traders Vs. Birendra Nath Dey and Ors.) and FMA 86 of 2019 (Birendra Nath Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) are heard together not only because they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 11th September, 2018, but also for the reason that a decision in one of the appeals will have an impact on the other. The writ petition being WP 6100 (W) of 2015 (Birendra Nath Dey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) was filed by the appellant (in FMA 86 of 2019) (for the sake of convenience we hereinafter referBirendra Nath Dey as the writ petitioner).In the said writ petition, Udyog Traders, the appellant in FMA 85 of 2019, was respondent No.8 (for the sake of convenience, we hereinafter refer the appellant as Udyog Traders).
(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- a) On 8th September, 2009, the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Murshidabad invited applications from bona fide Indian citizen with "sound financial capacity" and "experience in business" for being appointed as an MR Distributor at Banjetia, Berhampore, in the district of Murshidabad. The application was to be made on plain paper and also in Form 'A' to be collected from the MR Section of the office of District Controller, Food and Supplies, Murshidabad.b) The Form 'A' appears to be in terms of paragraphs 19(II) and 23(III) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the said Control Order).c) Pursuant to such advertisement, the writ petitioner and Udyog Traders along with several others applied for being appointed as MR Distributor.d) The Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Berhampore, Murshidabad being the respondent No.7 in the writ petition made a physical inquiry as to the godowns and also verified the particulars furnished by the intending candidates as to the financial capacity and experience in business. e) The said respondent No.7, on 19th February, 2010 submitted his detailed report to the District Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Murshidabad being the respondent No.6 in the writ petition. The report in respect of Udyog Traders and the writ petitioner are as follows:- JUDGEMENT_27_LAWS(CAL)8_2019_1.html f) Considering the said report submitted by the respondent No.7, the respondent No.6 made his recommendation on the inquiry report by a memo dated 17th March, 2010, which was addressed to the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Government of West Bengal being the respondent No.3 in the writ petition. The said memo of the recommendation made by the respondent no.6 contains the particulars in respect of Udyog Traders and Birendra Nath Dey, the writ petitioner, the relevant portions whereof are reproduced hereunder:-"In view of the above facts it appears that in respect of financial condition and storing place, Sl. No.1, candidature of "Udyog Traders" is more suitable for M.R. Distributorship business and may be considered for appointment of M.R. Distributorship against the vacancy notification as mentioned above".g) Finally the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal by a memo dated 6th August, 2010 addressed to the respondent No.3 approved the appointment of Udyog Traders as an MR Distributor at Banjetia, P.S- Berhampore, Dist.-Murshidabad.h) The respondent No.6 by a memo dated 9th August, 2010 finally gave the appointment to Udyog Traders but it was specifically mentioned in the said memo that appointment will abide by the result of the Writ Petition No.1030 of 2010 (Birendra Nath Dey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.).i) It is, therefore, apparent that prior to the final appointment granted by the authorities, the writ petition was filed. Record also reveals that in the said writ petition on 6th August, 2010, the following order was passed:-"The Court : Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within four weeks from date. Affidavit-in-reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. Matter be listed on the following working day as "For Orders".Any action taken shall in the meanwhile abide by the result of the writ application."The appointment letter, therefore, contained the stipulation as aforesaid.
(3.) It further appears that the writ petition was amended subsequently to the amendment application made by the writ petitioner being allowed on contest after affidavits.;