S.N.BHATTACHARJEE - (1.) - The only point raised in this appeal as to whether the Director, Food and Supplies extended the period for filing of application for grant of licence of wholesale dealer in sugar at Krishnagunj, Dist. Nadia and if so, whether he was competent to do so under the notification issued under the statute.
(2.) THE Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Krishnagore issued a notice dated 26-4-94 inviting applications for issuing wholesale levy free Sugar dealers' licence in respect of the police stations including Krishnagunj fixing a target date in pursuance whereof the writ petitioner, along with others, applied in form A for grant of said licence for levy free sugar. THE respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also applied therefor after expiry of the date fixed in the notification. Subsequently at the request of Nadia Zilla Parishad the date was extended the case respondent No. 5 was recommended by the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge himself and he was granted licence. THE writ petitioner challenged the said order before the ld. trial Judge alleging that the selection was at the behest of the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge after the time being illegally extended for making the application and prayed for issuing writs setting aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 as wholesale dealer of levy free sugar in area at Krishnagunj, Dist. Nadia. The learned trial Judge observed, "I am, however, unable to accept the contention of the present petitioner that candidature of the respondents No. 5 and 6 should not have been considered at all. It is true as pointed out by the petitioner that they applied beyond the prescribed time, but it appears from the records that the Zilla Parishad by taking various resolutions also resolved that to increase the scope of such applications time should be extended, becauseof which time for making application was extended although at a very belated stage in the month of December and notices were also issued. More serious, in my view, is the attack of the present petitioner that there has been no proper consideration at all and the respondent No. 5 is sought to be appointed on extraneous consideration.After considering all aspects of the matter I am constrained to record that recommendation for appointment in favour of the respondent No. 5 has been made certainly on extraneous consideration.The ld. trial Judge set aside the appointment of the respondent No. 5 and directed the appropriate authority to make the selection and appointment in accordance with the law after considering the respective candidature, the merits and demerits of each of such candidates after recording the reason as to why the candidate selected for appointment is preferred to other candidates. There is no doubt that the Sub-Divisional Controller is the authority to decide such questions". Being aggrieved by this order directing the authorities to consider the cases of all the candidates including those of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.
(3.) IT has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the applications of respondents No. 5 and 6 were recommended by Nadia Zilla Parishad and the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Nadia extended the date up to 31-12-1994 on the request of Zilla Parishad, Nadia and subsequently notified by the Deputy Director, Food and Supply although they have no authority to do so and the Sub-Divisional Controller, F.S., Krishnanagore wrongly acted upon such recommendations. According to him, the order passed by the learned trial Judge directing the authorities to consider the case of respondents No. 5 and 6 is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside. Pursuant to the order dated 1-3-99 passed by this Bench the Official Records were produced before us to enable us to examine whether the last date for filing application was extended by the Director, Food and Supplies.;