Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nilkamal Pandit vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 July, 2021
04
27.07.2021.
d.p./sh
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.A 10580 of 2021
(Via Video Conference)
Nilkamal Pandit
-versus
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sagarmoy Ghosh.
...For the Petitioners.
Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal,
Ms. Nibedita Pal,
Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee,
Mr. Ramesh Dhara.
...For the Respondent
No. 7.
Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
Ms. Supriya Dubey.
...For the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17th
April, 2021 passed by the Secretary, Department of
Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal in
compliance of the order dated 22nd December, 2020
passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in
the matter of Subhas Chandra Bhunia -vs- The State of
West Bengal & Ors. (FMA 2134 of 2018). By the order
dated 17th April, 2021, the license of Subhas Chandra
Bhunia, the private respondent herein which was
terminated has been restored.
Consequent upon such restoration, the vacancy
declared in the selfsame dealership of Sri Bhunia or the
selection process started stood cancelled.
The petitioner happens to be a customer of
Subhas Chandra Bhunia, who is a Fair Price Shop
dealer.
According to the petitioner, the aforesaid Subhas
Chandra Bhunia committed certain irregularities in his
business. A complaint was filed against Sri Bhunia in
the office of respondent authorities, pursuant to which
a show cause notice-cum-suspension order was issued.
The matter travelled to the Court at the instance
of Sri Bhunia and by the judgment dated 22nd
December, 2020 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court remanded the matter back to the Principal
Secretary of the department for deciding the issue.
The order impugned has been passed in
compliance of the said order.
The petitioner apprehends that the private
respondent i.e. Subhas Chandra Bhunia will once again
carry on the same irregularities as he committed on the
earlier occasion.
The learned advocate appearing for the private
respondent submits that the petitioner does not have
the locus standi to move the instant writ petition. The
prayers made by the petitioner has been referred to by
the private respondent and submitted that the
petitioner does not have the authority to move the writ
Court for the purpose of protection of the lives and
dignity of the villagers.
It has been submitted that the instant writ
petition is not a Public Interest Litigation and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
The learned advocate appearing for the State
respondents submits that the impugned order has been
passed in compliance of the direction passed by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court.
Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of
all the parties, it appears that the petitioner has moved
the writ petition on the apprehension that the private
respondent may commit certain irregularities at the
time of doing business.
The petitioner has not been able to come forward
with any instance showing that after the license was
restored in favour of the private respondent any
irregularity has been committed by him.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to entertain
the writ petition.
The writ petition appears to be a premature one
and has been filed only on apprehension of irregularity
which may be committed by the private respondent.
The writ application, accordingly, stands
dismissed.
In the event any irregularity is actually
committed by the private respondent the petitioner will
be at liberty to take steps as permitted in law.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if
applied for, be given to the parties on completion of
usual formalities.
( Amrita Sinha, J.)
