Sheoraphuli Kancha Sabzee ... vs The State Of West Bengal And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 1474 Cal

                       In the High Court at Calcutta
                      Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                               Appellate Side

The Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

                           WPA No. 5495 of 2020
                                   With
                           IA No: CAN 1 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 3882 of 2020)
                                   With
                              CAN 2 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 3883 of 2020)
                                   With
                              CAN 3 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 3892 of 2020)
                                   With
                              CAN 4 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 3893 of 2020)
                                   With
                              CAN 5 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 4489 of 2020)
                                   With
                              CAN 6 of 2020
                        (Old No: CAN 4490 of 2020)

       Sheoraphuli Kancha Sabzee Babsayee Samity and another
                               -Vs.-
                The State of West Bengal and others


For the petitioners           :     Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya,
                                    Mr. Saptansu Basu,
                                    Mr. Uday Sankar Chattopadhyay,
                                    Mr. Suman Sankar Chatterjee,
                                    Mr. Santanu Maji,
                                    Ms. Snigdha Saha,
                                    Mr. Pronay Basak,
                                    Mr. Subhayu Das

For the State                 :     Mr. Kishore Dutta,
                                    Mr. Debasish Ghosh,
                                    Mr. Sayan Sinha

For the
respondent no.7               :     Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar,

Mr. T. M. Siddiqui, Mr. Avra Mazumder

For the respondent no.8 : Mr. Samrat Sen, Mr. Amitava Mitra

For the applicants in CAN 3892 of 2020 : Mr. Pingal Bhattacharya, Mr. Neil Basu

For the applicants in CAN 3882 of 2020 and CAN 3883 of 2020 : Mr. Abhishek Halder, Mr. Arkaprava Sen

Hearing concluded on : 09.02.2021

Judgment on : 19.02.2021

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J:-

1. Petitioner No. 1, namely Sheoraphuli Kancha Sabzee Babsayee

Samity, is a society registered under the West Bengal Societies

Registration Act, 1961. Its members have been running wholesale

business of vegetables at the Sheoraphuli market, situated beside the

Sheoraphuli Railway Station, for quite a long time. Admittedly, some

of them have valid trade licences and the others have applied for

renewal, which is pending. Petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the

petitioner no. 1-society.

2. Vide Memo No. 516/Con/Srp dated April 23, 2020, the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Serampore, Hooghly (Respondent no. 5) intimated the

Assistant Commissioner of Police-II, Chandannagar Police

Commissionerate, Hooghly that, as per direction of Competent

Authority, the Sheoraphuli market (beside railway station) would be

shifted on and from April 24, 2020 to Sheoraphuli Regulated Market,

situated at Sasmalpara, Baidyabati (beside Delhi Road) following

containment strategy of spreading COVID-19. A request was also

made to ensure shifting arrangement smoothly to avoid any untoward

incident.

3. By Memo No. 818 dated May 22, 2020, respondent no. 5 requested

the Secretary, Hooghly Zilla R.M.C. to take necessary action for the

facilitation of the concerned trader/commission agents regarding

clearing of due taxes as per existing law in force, regarding renewal of

R.M.C. licence and operation of the Sheoraphuli 'Haat' (market).

4. Both the memoranda have been challenged in the present writ

petition.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

memo dated April 23, 2020 neither named the 'Competent Authority'

under whose direction the memo was issued nor indicated the

provision of law under which the market was sought to be shifted

from its previous location to Sasmalpara, Baidyabati, beside the Delhi

Road.

6. The impugned memo itself indicates that the shifting of market was

undertaken following containment strategy regarding spread of

COVID-19. Thus, such shifting could at best fall within the purview of

the Disaster Management Act, 2005. If so, learned senior counsel

argues, such shifting could at best be for a temporary period.

However, in the present case, the market was shifted on a permanent

basis to a new facility. Post facto justification for such shifting, as

given by the respondents in their subsequent action and in their

pleadings in the present writ petition, cannot validate such illegal

action, it is submitted.

7. Learned senior counsel further submits that the wholesale vegetable

market-in-question is the biggest such market in the entire Hooghly

district and the second largest market in West Bengal has been

continuing for about 500 years. The predecessors of the members of

petitioner no. 1 started business therein by purchasing land in their

names, which was inherited by its present members. The property was

improved by the members and godowns constructed by making huge

investments. The location of the market is at a vantage area, both in

terms of the goodwill created, easy accessibility and transport facilities

due to its proximity to the Sheoraphuli railway station. Arbitrary

shifting of the market from such area would be to irreparable

detriment to the wholesalers' interest.

8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that the

establishment and continuance of the market and incidents thereof

are governed by the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing

(Regulation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1972 Act") and

the Rules of 1982 framed thereunder. Section 2 (1) (a) of the 1972 Act

defines "agricultural produce", which includes the commodities sold in

the market-in-question.

9. Section 2 (h) of the 1972 Act defines "market area" as any area

declared to be a market area under Section 3. Section 3 (1) stipulates

that the State Government may, by "notification", declare any area as

a market area within which purchase and sale of such agricultural

produce as may be specified in the notification shall be regulated.

10. Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the 1972 Act provides that the State

Government may, by "notification", declare that a market area

declared as such under sub-section (1) shall cease to be a market area

with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification. On

such declaration, it is provided, the market committee constituted for

the market area shall stand dissolved and the consequences

mentioned therein will follow.

11. Section 2 (1) (kk) of the Act provides that "notification" means a

notification published in the Official Gazette. Hence, the petitioners

argue, the impugned memo dated April 23, 2020, which brought

about a permanent shift of the market area, could not have been

issued by any "Competent Authority", let alone the Sub-Divisional

Officer, without prior notification in the Official Gazette. There was no

publication in the Official Gazette regarding the impugned shifting at

any point of time, it is submitted.

12. Section 2(1)(g) of the 1972 Act defines "market" as a market

established or declared as such under the Act for a market area and

includes a principal market yard, a sub-market yard, a private market

yard and consumers' or farmers' market, that is, Krishak Bazar or

Brihat Krishak Bazar, etc. if any.

13. Section 4(1) provides that in every market area there may be one

principal market yard and one or more sub-market yards, both

managed by the market committee, one or more than one private

market yards or private markets managed by a licensee, and one or

more famers' or consumers' market managed by a licensee. Sub-

section (2) of Section 4 stipulates that the State Government may,

after the issue of notification under Section 3, declare any specified

place including any structure, enclosure, open place or locality in the

market area to be a principal market yard or sub-market yard, and

private market yard, consumers' or farmers' market, as the case may

be.

14. Thus, it is argued by the petitioners, in the absence of any prior

notification of market area in the Official Gazette under Section 3 of

the 1972 Act, no new area could be designated as a market yard, sub-

market yard, private market, farmers' market or consumers' market.

15. Even for de-establishment of a market by the State Government under

Section 4A(d) of the 1972 Act, a prior notification in the Official

Gazette is mandatory.

16. The Sheoraphuli market, it is argued, is in the nature of a private

market and comes within the purview of the above Sections. Thus, the

de-establishment of a market or designation of a new place as market

area had to be preceded by an Official Gazette notification, the

absence of which in the present case vitiates the impugned memo

dated April 23, 2020.

17. Relying on Gazette Notification No. 1378-AM/P/5A-17/2013 dated

October 17, 2014, which is annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of

respondent no.7, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

that the entire area of the District of Hooghly was declared as a

market area under Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, within which the

purchase and sale of agricultural produce/produces as specified in

the 1982 Rules shall be regulated. Thus, it is argued, the members of

petitioner no. 1 have every right under the law to conduct wholesale

business of agricultural produce in any location within the district of

Hooghly, including the original location of the Sheoraphuli market

near the railway station.

18. Challenging next the legality of the second impugned memo, dated

May 22, 2020, learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that

the said memo cites clearance of "due taxes" as an excuse for sitting

tight over the applications for renewal of licence of some of the

members of the petitioner no.1-society, without specifying as to what

was the quantum of tax actually due, if at all, and/or as to what was

the basis of such demand. It is thus submitted that the respondents

ought to be directed to take immediate steps for renewal of the

licences of all members of petitioner no.1, whose renewal applications

are pending.

19. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance

on Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election

Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] to contend

that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain

grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and

cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or

otherwise. Otherwise an order bad in the beginning may, by the time

it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional

grounds later brought out. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner

argues that the memoranda under challenge in the present writ

petition being cryptic and without reasons, the subsequent

justifications of the decisions, sought to be brought on record by the

respondents by way of pleadings and additional materials, will not

suffice to validate the decisions, which were invalid and illegal in the

first place.

20. Several applications for addition of party were filed in connection with

the present writ petition, some of which were allowed previously. The

added parties urge that a substantial portion of the vendors, who used

to operate at the original location of the market at Sheoraphuli, have

already shifted to the new venue. It is contended that the new market

place has a significantly large area, as compared with the original site.

Moreover, the new market place is larger in area, has better locational

advantage, being situated beside the Delhi Road, and has much better

and upgraded infrastructure and facilities than the previous site.

21. The added parties also plead that unlawful 'syndicates' having

political affiliation used to rule the roost at the previous location near

the Sheoraphuli railway station. Outsiders hampered the business of

the valid licencees. Moreover, there was the issue of disposal of

clinical waste from nearby medical facilities, which compounded the

problem due to the huge amounts of solid waste spewed by the

market. The market at its previous location allegedly also hampered

the functioning of nearby educational institutions.

22. Respondent no. 8, the Inspector-in-Charge of the Serampore Police

Station, also corroborates such stand on oath by filing affidavit and

supports the impugned shifting of market place.

23. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for respondent no. 7

(the Secretary, Hooghly Zilla Regulated Marketing Society), reiterates

the submissions of the added parties on the question of availability of

a larger area and better infrastructure at the new market place. In

addition, it is submitted that the decision to shift was taken over a

considerable period of time, upon having several sittings with all

stakeholders, including vendors and the market committee of the

Sheoraphuli market. In support of such contention, learned Additional

Advocate General banks on the minutes of two meetings dated

February 21, 2018 and January 14, 2019 signed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer, Serampore which were allegedly attended by

various stakeholders including the Secretary, Hooghly Zilla Regulated

Market Committee, as well as on documents pertaining to allotment of

spaces in the new site of the market and proposals/cost estimates for

development work to significantly improve the infrastructure of the

market and logistics of the new market place, copies of which are

annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent no. 7.

24. It is further submitted that the previous location was close to the

Sheoraphuli railway station and was in a congested area. Operation of

the wholesale market used to create serious traffic snarls and

considerable inconvenience to the commuters and people of the

locality. Solid waste and traffic management had become major issues

at the previous location. After initial doubts were raised by the

vendors of the Sheoraphuli market about shifting to the new location,

several discussions were held between the interested parties, leading

to the respondent-authorities providing modern facilities and

infrastructure at the new location. A market committee has been duly

constituted in the fresh location and the market has already started

functioning fully. A vast majority of the vendors have already shifted

and are operating with valid licences therein. The area of the current

site is about 38.5 acres, whereas the previous location comprised of

about 4.5 acres only.

25. Learned Additional Advocate General next contends that several

members of the petitioner no. 1-society admittedly do not have valid

licences to sell agricultural produce, since their licences have expired

long back. Moreover, the petitioners do not represent the interests of

most of the wholesale vendors of the market-in-question. Thus, it is

argued, the petitioners have no locus standi to maintain the writ

petitioner.

26. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State-respondent,

reiterates the contention of respondent no. 7 on locus standi of the

petitioners and relies on Seedsman Association, Hyderabad and

Others v. Principal Secretary to Govt., A.P. and Others, reported at

(2004) 9 SCC 56. In the said case, no details regarding the members of

the appellant association and their activity had been given. The

association was conspicuously silent about the nature and variety of

seeds allegedly produced by it and the method or process adopted in

the production of seeds. There were no clear averments on various

other aspects, for which it was held by the Supreme Court that it was

not possible to arrive at the necessary factual finding that the

foodgrains meant to be utilised as seeds had irretrievably lost their

basic character, i.e. their consumption as food by human beings or

animals or for extraction for the like purposes. The Supreme Court,

therefore, refused relief to the appellants.

27. Learned counsel for the respondents-authorities also rely on an

unreported judgment rendered on April 18, 2011 by the Jabalpur

Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.

1794/2011 (Prabhat v. Barkatulla University, Bhopal & Anr.). The

Division Bench authoring the judgment held that a writ petition for

enforcement of the rights of its members, as distinguished from the

rights of the association as a body, can be filed by the association

acting through its office bearer or member, whether it is registered or

unregistered, incorporated or not, only when the association can

satisfy the court that if an adverse decision is given in that petition all

the members of that association or "body of individuals" will be bound

by the decision. The members of the association must be clearly

determinate and identifiable and there should be Rules of such

association or a legally binding special resolution of its general body

for such representation in the litigation, so as to bind the members by

the decision in such litigation. The Bench declined to entertain the

writ petition by the association on that score.

28. In this context, learned Additional Advocate General cites Mohd.

Murtaza and Others v. State of Assam and Others, reported at (2011)

12 SCC 413, where the Supreme Court held that citizens ordinarily do

not go to wholesale markets but to retail markets. Hence, if wholesale

market is not situated within city limits it will not cause any

inconvenience to public in general. If such wholesale market is

situated within city limits, it was held, there will be hazards of traffic

congestion, air and noise pollution, health and hygiene problems. No

doubt, shifting of shops of wholesalers will cause some hardships to

some individuals, but public interest prevails over private interests

and certain matters are best left to administrative authorities. Courts

have a limited role in policy matters and should only interfere when it

is clearly illegal and not with steps taken by the authorities to resolve

a pressing problem crying out for redress for a long time and it is not

illegal.

29. Since the market-in-question is a wholesale (as opposed to retail)

market, the principle laid down in the above judgment, it is

contended, is squarely applicable to the present case.

30. The respondents contend that in view of the decision to shift the

Sheoraphuli market to Sasmalpara, Baidyabati being in the nature of

administrative action, prior publication of a notification in the Official

Gazette was not required. Such decision was taken not merely for

administrative convenience, but also for the benefit of the vendors and

buyers who transact wholesale business of agricultural produce. It

was taken upon prior interactions with all interested parties. In the

absence of any illegality in the impugned memoranda, there is no

scope for interference in the writ jurisdiction.

31. However, vide Gazette Notification No. 1366-AM/P/5A-17/2013 dated

October 17, 2014 (annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent

no. 7), the entire market area, for which Sheoraphuli Regulated

Market Committee and certain other such committees were

constituted under Section 5 (3), read with Section 5 (1), of the 1972

Act, were declared to cease to be a market area with immediate effect

and the said Market Committees in respect of the said market areas

were dissolved. This invalidated the Notification dated August 22,

2008, whereby the Sheoraphuli 'Hat' (market) was declared as a sub-

market yard under Section 4 (1) of the Act, also annexed to the

opposition of respondent no. 7.

32. As regards the renewal of licence, the respondents argue that such

renewal is not a matter of right of the applicants, particularly since

the licences of many of the members of petitioner no. 1 have expired

long back. The eligibility of the applicants and the adherence to

formality in applying for renewal have to be gone into by the

concerned authority before such renewal. As such, it is submitted,

there ought not to be a blanket direction to renew/issue licence to all

members of the petitioner no. 1-society.

33. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the prayer for

renewal of licence, made in the writ petition, is designed to avoid the

consequences of Section 13, sub-sections (1) and (4) of the 1972 Act,

which provide respectively that after six months from the declaration

of any area as a market area, no person shall, within the market area,

carry on business or act as a trader, etc. or sell or purchase

agricultural produce and allied activities and that a licence issued

under Section 13(3) may be renewed for the prescribed period by the

Market Committee or the Board, as the case may be, from time to time

on application made in this behalf by the licensee and on payment of

a fee equal to the fee payable for the issuance of the licence at the first

instance.

34. Learned Additional Advocate General relies, in this context, on a

communication dated May 26, 2020 by the Secretary, Hooghly Zilla

R.M.C. to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Serampore alleging non-

compliance of Section 13, sub-sections (1) and (4) by more or less two

hundred traders/commission agents of fruits and vegetables in the

Sheoraphuli 'Hat', who had been running their business without valid

R.M.C. Licence since long time, for which they were liable to

prosecution under Section 34 of the Act.

35. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

relevant law and the materials on record, it transpires that, vide

Gazette Notification No. 1366-AM/P/5A-17/2013 dated October 17,

2014, the entire market area under the Sheoraphuli Regulated Market

Committee (including the site of the Sheoraphuli 'Hat') ceased to be a

market area and the Market Committee stood dissolved, thus

denuding the business, run by the members of the petitioner no. 1 at

the said location, of legal sanction under the 1972 Act.

36. Since the entire Hooghly District had been declared to be a market

area vide Gazette Notification No. 1378-AM/P/5A-17/2013 dated

October 17, 2014, there was no legal bar for the concerned authorities

to re-locate the Sheoraphuli 'Hat' to some other area after it ceased to

be a market area. The said notification, read in conjunction with

Notification No. 1366-AM/P/5A-17/2013, specifically excluded the

Sheoraphuli market and certain other specific locations from the

designated 'market area', which now extended to the rest of the

Hooghly district.

37. It is relevant to note that none of the above Gazette Notifications were

challenged by the petitioners.

38. Although no specific Gazette Notification has been produced by the

parties to show that the new location at Sasmalpara, Baidyabati (near

the Delhi Road) was declared to be a 'market area', principal market

yard, sub-market yard, consumers' or farmers' market and/or private

market, there is no legal hurdle in shifting the Sheoraphuli market to

Sasmalpara, since the latter location falls within the rest of the

Hooghly district (which has been declared to be a 'market area' in its

entirety) than those named in Notification No. 1366-AM/P/5A-

17/2013, even in the absence of any specific notification declaring the

new location to be a market area, principal or sub-market yard, etc.

39. Even from a practical perspective, it is evident from the materials on

record that the new location at Sasmalpara is far superior to the

previous site at Sheoraphuli in terms of area, logistics and facilities for

a wholesale vegetable and fruit market, particularly taking into

account the yardsticks laid down in Mohd. Murtaza (supra).

40. The ratio of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra), relied on by the petitioners, is

not applicable in terms to the present case. The said report was

dealing with an order of the Election Commissioner, which was

supposed to specify reasons. The present challenge, however, is not

confined to any particular order but to the shifting of the Sheoraphuli

market in general. As shown clearly by the respondents from the

materials on record, the impugned Memo dated April 23, 2020 was

not the focal point of the decision to shift, but is merely one of the

various components of such shifting. The pandemic situation,

although cited in such Memo, was only one of the immediate reasons

for such shift.

41. The process of shifting had started long back, reasonably soon after

the Sheoraphuli market ceased to be a market area in 2014, and

comprised of a long, interactive process involving all stakeholders. The

new site was developed, meeting the demand of the traders, and

adequate logistics, facilities and infrastructure were provided there, at

considerable expenditure of public money, to mitigate the grievances

of the vendors holding valid licences. A substantial number of traders

and commission agents have already shifted to the new site and the

market has commenced functioning full-swing at the new location. On

a balance, the vested interest of a few vendors, who might have

invested money in the land housing the previous market at

Sheoraphuli, has to give way to the larger public interest in shifting

the same to a better and larger location.

42. The act of purchasing plots of land in the Sheoraphuli area and

investing therein by some individual vendors does not ipso facto

validate the running of wholesale vegetable business from there. As

per the scheme of the 1972 Act, "market" includes private market

yards, thus subjecting such yards to the provisions of the Act as well.

Hence, to trade in wholesale agricultural produce, vendors of private

markets must also hold licences under Section 13 of the 1972 Act.

43. In view of the 2014 Notification, by which Sheoraphuli market ceased

to be a market area, no vendor had a right to carry on wholesale

vegetable or fruit business from there, thus negating any possibility of

a licence being issued/renewed for conduct of such business from the

said area.

44. The ratio of Seedsman Association (supra), relied on by the

respondents, is not applicable to the present case. The finding of

vagueness and insufficiency in pleadings in the said case pertained

specifically to the subject-matter under consideration there. The

question which arose there was whether the members of the

concerned association carried on business in certain kinds of seeds

which were regulated by the Seeds Act, 1966 and the relevant

Agricultural Produce Act of Andhra Pradesh. The cardinal concept

around which the decision revolved was whether the commodity-in-

question was 'seeds' and therefore not exigible to market fee or was

'foodgrains' and therefore exigible. In such context, the Supreme

Court held that the writ petition was vague and insufficient in

pleadings as to what type of seeds the members of the association

were doing business in. Thus, the absence of pleadings on that score

assumed significance.

45. In the present case, however, the writ petition clearly avers that the

members of the petitioner no. 1-society have been carrying on

wholesale business in agricultural produce, thus coming within the

purview of the 1972 Act.

46. Prabhat v. Barkatulla University (supra), however, clearly lays down

that, unless the members of the suing association are clearly

determinate and identifiable, the result of the litigation does not bind

all members of the association. The said decision of a Division Bench

of the Madhya Pradesh High Court undoubtedly has much persuasive

value in the present context.

47. However, the said ratio, though otherwise applicable to the present

case, is rendered academic here since, even if the petitioners

succeeded, only the members of petitioner no. 1 would be bound by

the outcome of this writ petition; however, all traders holding valid

licence to carry on wholesale business of agricultural produce in the

new location of the market-in-question would not be so bound. Thus,

even without resorting to the ratio of Prabhat (supra), the petitioners

have no locus standi to represent the interest of other traders/agents,

who are not the members of petitioner no. 1 but still hold, or are

eligible to get, valid licences to carry on such business at the new

location of the market.

48. In the present writ petition, the petitioners cannot be said to represent

the interest of the entire trading community which is eligible to run

business at the shifted site of the market. Moreover, admittedly, many

of the members of the petitioner no. 1-society do not hold valid,

updated licences as on date. Even if benefit of doubt were to be given

to the petitioners, keeping in mind the wide scope of the writ

jurisdiction, and it was assumed that the writ petition was

maintainable at least at the instance of some of the members of the

petitioner no. 1, the petition is doomed to fail otherwise, since no

illegality and/or arbitrariness has been shown in the impugned

shifting of market area.

49. The administration acted within its permissible authority and on

sound, legally tenable grounds for the public benefit, which overrides

overwhelmingly the individual interests of some traders, who might be

represented by the petitioners.

50. As regards the renewal of licence, the right of such renewal is subject

to compliance of Section 13 (4) of the 1972 Act. Such renewal is not a

blanket right but circumscribed by discretion of the respondent-

authorities, to be exercised in accordance with law. In the present

case, it will be well within the authority of the respondents to consider

the violation of Section 13 of the 1972 Act and the scope of

consequent penal action under Section 34 of the Act, which may have

an indirect bearing on the renewal of licence. However, it is premature

and unnecessary for the present purpose to enter into the merits of

the question of renewal. Suffice to say that the respondents ought to

decide on the applications for renewal of licence, if any, made by the

members of the petitioner no. 1-society at an early date. As far as the

impugned Memo No. 818 dated May 22, 2020 is concerned, it

contained no final decision but merely sought tax clearance to be

ensured prior to renewal of licence, which does not afford any cause of

action for challenge.

51. Accordingly, WPA No.5495 of 2020 is dismissed without any order as

to costs. The respondents shall, however, ensure that the pending

applications for renewal of licence under Section 13(4) of the West

Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972, if any,

made by the members of the petitioner no.1-society, are decided in

accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, subject to the

petitioners handing over to the respondents a specific list of such

members whose applications for renewal are pending, along with

relevant particulars and dates of such applications.

52. Connected pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

53. Urgent certified copies, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon

due compliance of all requisite formalities.

( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )