SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE,J. - (1.) The petitioners filed the present case seeking following reliefs :- (a) Issue a Writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them to cancel, rescind, with draw and/or forebear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned orders dated 14.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 being annexure 'P-20' and 'P-23' to this application and further to act in accordance with law by acting in the manner aforesaid ; (b) Issue a Writ of or in the nature of Certiorari commanding the respondents and each one of them to forthwith and/or immediately certify and/or transmit to This Hon'ble Court the entire records and/or proceedings forming subject matter of the instant case so that conscionable justice may therein be administered by setting aside and/or quashing the proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the show-cause, impugned orders dated 14.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 being annexure 'P-20' and 'P-23' to this application; (c) Issue a Writ of or in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents and each one of them from giving any effect and/or further effect to the impugned termination orders dated 14.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 being annexure 'P-20' and 'P-23' to this application; (d) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith cancel, rescind, withdraw and/or forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to any decision arrived at not to re-link the M.R. Dealer Cards with the shop of the petitioners and not to allow the petitioners to run the said business of M.R. Dealership and not to renew his M.R. Dealer Licence and to act in accordance with law by acting in the manner stated hereinabove; (e) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith consider the case of the petitioners and to allow them to run the said business of M.R. Dealership by re-linking the M.R. Dealer Cards with the shop of the petitioners and also renew the M.R. Dealer Licence of their said firm and to act in accordance with law by acting in the manner stated hereinabove; (f) Rule NISI in terms of prayers (a) to (e) as above and to make the Rule absolute if no cause and/or insufficient cause is shown in answer thereto; (g) Issue an interim order staying the operation of the impugned orders dated 14.07.2010 and 01.06.2011 being annexure 'P-20' and 'P-23' to this application so far it relates to imposition of punishment of termination upon the petitioners with immediate effect be granted till the disposal of the Rule; (h) Issue an interim order directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to run the business of M.R. Dealership immediately and forthwith without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties be granted till the disposal of the Rule; (i) Ad-interim order in terms of prayers (g) and (h) as above; (j) Order for cost and incidental to this application to be paid to the petitioners by the respondents; (k) Such further or other order or orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
(2.) The petitioner's case in nutshell is as follows :- In the year 2003, after introduction of the Control Order 2003 the petitioner's firm namely M/s . Gostha Bihari Nandy and Others appointed as wholesalers and they were being allowed by the respondents to carry on the business of distributing ration commodities. The Director of Food and Rationing vide letter dated 13th may, 2005 informed the petitioners that they lost one of their two godowns since the landlords of that godown sold away the entire building including the godown. On 20th February, 2006 one of the partners of the said firm informed the Director of Rationing that in the year 2005 they had deal with the rationing commodities properly and the allotted goods were lifted regularly and the distribution was done accordingly. On 27th March, 2006 the petitioner submitted application under 'Form-C' to obtain necessary licence. Again on 31st January, 2007 the then partner of the said petitioner's firm submitted application under 'Form-C' and also submitted non-judicial stamp papers amounting to Rs.500/- to obtain licence for the year 2007. On 15th March, 2007 one of the partners of the petitioner's firm namely Smt. Shephali Nandi died which was duly informed by other existing partner to the Deputy Director and Rationing Barrackpore vide a letter dated 19th March, 2007. On 15th March, 2007 one of the partners of the petitioner's firm namely Smt. Debamitra Nandy also informed the Deputy Director of Rationing Barrackpore to the effect that she had retired from the partnership business with the effect from 31st March, 2007. Another partner of the petitioner's firm also died on 26th June, 2007 and accordingly vide a letter dated 7th August, 2007 the petitioner No.1 informed the Deputy Director of the Rationing Barrackpore regarding her death. Accordingly by a forwarding letter the petitioner submitted a re- constituted partnership deed on 20th June, 2007. Thereafter the partners of the petitioner again on 13th January, 2010 submitted the 'Form-C' and other relevant documents for obtaining renewal of the licences for the year 2010. The petitioner's company received a show- cause notice issued by the Director of Rationing on 29th January, 2010. Accordingly the petitioner's firm submitted written reply on 9th February, 2010 against that show-cause notice. Vide a letter dated 12th April, 2010 the Officer-in-Charge, Legal and Licensing and Ex-Officio Joint Director of Rationing directed the petitioner to appear on 23rd April, 2010 at 12 noon for a personal hearing. Accordingly the petitioner appeared on the fixed date. Unfortunately by the order dated 14th July, 2010 the Director of Rationing West Bengal refused to consider the prayer of the petitioner for licence/renewal of licence as a wholesaler on the basis of paragraph-21 of the Control Order 2003. Against that order of cancellation petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 1st June, 2011 passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Food and Supply Department the petitioner's appeal was rejected thereby affirming the decision of cancellation of renewal issued by Director of Rationing on 14th July, 2010 as holding punishment of the petitioner was justified and the same was upheld. Submissions of the learned Advocates
(3.) Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently submitted that both the impugned orders dated 29th July, 2010 as well as the appellate order dated 1st June, 2011 are instance of total non-application of mind and also without considering the reply of the petitioner against the show-cause notice. It is also submitted that in the impugned order the Director of Rationing travelling beyond the charges mentioned in the show-cause notice passed the impugned order. Therefore, rejection order dated 29th July, 2010 passed by the Director of Rationing as well as appeal order passed by Commissioner were passed with a biased and closed mind, accordingly liable to be set aside. It is also strongly argued that there is no allegations in the show- cause notice pertaining to irregular the distribution of M.R commodities has ever been against the petitioner. On the contrary petitioner's firm discharged their duties and responsibilities in compliance of the Control Order, 2003 and there was no allegation from any corner against the petitioner's firm regarding distribution of M.R. commodities. Accordingly Mr. Bandyopadhyay emphasized that the charges levelled against the petitioner were absolutely vague and the respondent miserably failed to prove any allegation of violation of Control Order 2003 by the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner company right from the year 1964 till 2003 (before amendment of the Control Order) was allowed to run the said business after amendment of the Control Order, 2003. In terms of the said Control Order the petitioner applied for renewal of their licence thereby filling up 'Form-C'. Be that as it may the petitioner firm was allowed to carry on the said business till 2010 by the respondent without any obstruction or objection. Curiously, only on 29th January, 2010 the show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner upon some baseless concocted allegations. Against that the petitioner submitted written reply which was not considered at the time of passing the rejection order dated 14th July, 2011 which was confirmed by the appellate authority vide its order dated 1st June, 2011. It was also vehemently submitted that the petitioner's firm time to time informed the authority regarding shifting of place of business as well as re-constitutions of the said firm by the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner also informed the authority that since 1964 only once the petitioner firm had shifted their business place for proper, smooth distribution of M.R materials. ;