Prodyot Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) These four appeals arising out of 4 writ petitions and covered by a common judgment is directed against the decision of a single Judge of this Court and it relates with the running of a hat popularly known as 'Fakoghat Hat' in Mouza Chingra under Gopiballavpur Panchayat Samiti, P.S. Baliaberh within district of Midnapore. Respondent No. 1, Hazi Sazzad AM, who happens to be the writ Petitioner in all of the Writ petitions had alleged that on September 30, 1972, he applied to the then Administrator, Gopiballavpur II Anchalic Parishad for a licence for running the above-mentioned hat. On the basis of such application, the writ Petitioner was granted licence under Rule 137 of the West Bengal Zila Parishad Rules 1964. The said licence was renewable and the last renewal was effected by the Panchayat Samiti for the year 1991-92. His further case is that the licence was granted under Section 117 of the West Bengal Panchayat Act after the said Act came into operation in 1974. As his licence was to expire on March 31, 1992, he applied to the Sabhapati of the said Panchyat Samiti on March 2, 1992 for further renewal, but it was not renewed on account of objection made in respect thereof by some private Respondents namely, Anwar Ali Khan and Ors. Without renewing the writ Petitioner's licence, the Panchayat Samiti included the names of those private Respondents in the lincence. By a letter dated March 31, 1992, a Panchyat Samiti informed the writ Petitioner that in pursuance of the application of those persons, the names of those persons were also included in the licence for holding the hat in respect of the year 1992-93. This promoted the writ Petitioner to come before this Court with four writ petitions one after another.
(2.) The first writ petition was made alleging inaction on the part of the Panchayat Samiti in renewing writ Petitioners' licence for running the said 'Pakoghat Hat' and direction was sought for upon the Panchayat to renew the Petitioners' said licence for the year 1992-93. The second writ petition was for cancellation of the names of other persons and for granting the licence in the name of writ Petitioner alone. The other two petitions were filed for orders to restrain the Panchayat Samiti for forcibly taking over the possession of the Management of the said hat from the writ Petitioners.
(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court after having heard the parties and after having considered all aspects of the case, allowed the writ petitions directing the Panchayat Samiti to issue licence in favour of the writ Petitioner alone and consequently the licence in favour of other private Respondents stands cancelled.;