S.B.Sinha, ACJ. - (1.) -This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.2.98 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner wherein he had prayed for the following relief:- (a)"A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the order dated 30.11.1994 (annexure 'A' to this petition) passed by respondent No. 1 shall not be quashed and/or rescind at once; (b) A writ of and/or in the nature Mandamus commanding the respondents to show cause as to why the Mmo. No.5241(53) dated 19.10.1989 issued by the respondent No. 5 shall not be set aside and/or rescind; (c) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a licence for levy-free sugar wholesale in favour of your petitioner; was dismissed."
(2.) The fact of the matter lies in a very narrated compass. The petitioner intends to deal in sugar. Admittedly the filed is covered by an order issued by the State of West Bengal in this behalf in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the delegating notification issued by the Central Government dated 9th June, 1978 in terms of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, known as West Bengal Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1980. Although the petitioner's application for grant of licence was considered and the petitioner deposited the security amount in terms of paragraph 6 of the said order, no licence having been granted, he filed the writ petition before this court which was marked as C.R. 9880(W) of 1992 and by an order dated 14.9.94 a learned Single Judge of this court directed the Sub-Divisional Controller (F&S) to consider the petitioner's representation within a period of 8 weeks from the date of service of copy of the order as well as a copy of the writ application in accordance with law and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order. Pursuant to the said direction the respondent No. 1 passed an order on 30.11.94 in terms whereof the representation filed by the appellant herein was rejected, inter alia, on the ground; (1) The offer made by the appellant to the effect that he was ready to invest Rs. 80,000/- was quite inadequate for such business in dealing in sugar. (2) The security amount deposited by him was contrary to administrative instruction issued by the State of West Bengal as contained in G.O. No. 11(54) FS dated 2.1.1989. (3) His signature in the affidavit differs with that obtained at the deposition during hearing.
(3.) The appellant being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order filed a writ application before this court which has been dismissed by an order under appeal.;