Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
M/S. Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 17 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
WPA NO.16713 of 2019
(CAN 1 of 2021)
With
WPA NO.16013 of 2019
(CAN 1 of 2021)
M/s. Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
-vs-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay
Mr. Ram Anad Agarwal
Mr. Nibedita Pal
Mr. Ramesh Dhara
Mr. Anada Gopal Mukherjee
For the State : Mr. Kishore Dutta, Ld. Advocate General
Mr. Susovan Sengupta
Mr. Subir Pal
For the Intervenor : Mr. Dilip Kumar Samanta
Heard on : 18.01.2021, 27.01.2021
Judgment on : 17.03.2021
Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.:
1. Both these applications are for impleadment of the applicant as a
respondent to these petitions.
2. These writ petitions have been filed by one M/s. Sonai Food Marketing
Pvt. Ltd. seeking distributorship in respect of two separate blocks in
the district of Purulia. The two writ petitions relate to the right of the
petitioners in respect of the vacancies notified by the respondent
authorities.
3. Pursuant to an advertisement for vacancies issued by the respondent
authorities, the petitioner company had applied for appointment as a
distributor in the Raghunathpur Block and Jaipur Block respectively
both in the district of Purulia. Subsequently, the petitioner company
made had two separate applications in terms of the aforesaid
advertisement. Thereafter, the petitioners filed these writ petitions
praying inter alia for appropriate directions on the respondent
authorities to consider the petitioner's applications for distributorship
in the respective areas and for consequential reliefs.
4. The applicant purports to represent the interests of unemployed
individuals and challenges the participation of the petitioner company
as a potential distributor in the district of Purulia. There are several
grounds which the applicant alleges as to why the petitioner company
ought not to be awarded the distributorship. The applicant also relies
on an order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated
22 August, 2019 in WPO-7620 of 2019. It is primarily alleged by the
applicant, that the aforesaid order dated 22 August, 2019 has been
deliberately suppressed by the petitioner company and there is an
attempt to mislead this Court. This is the only ground urged by the
applicant in seeking impleadment as a party respondent to these
petitions.
5. I have perused the aforesaid order dated 22 August, 2019. I am of the
view that the gist and substance of the order of Hon'ble Division
Bench is reflected in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the
State respondents. The State respondents have also in their affidavit
highlighted the fact that the notification dated 16 January, 2019 has
been withdrawn. This fact has also been brought on record by the
parties in their written submissions. Accordingly, I find no substance
in the case of the suppression as alleged by the applicant.
6. In any event, I am of the view that in a writ petition, the petitioner
ordinarily seeks enforcement of an individual legal right. I find the
applicant to be an interloper and a busy body who is neither a
necessary nor a proper party to these petitions. There is no existing
right in favour of the applicant which can be affected by any order
which may be passed in these petitions. I find that the applicant had
neither participated in the selection process nor has the applicant
submitted an application pursuant to the aforesaid notifications.
Accordingly, I am of the view that, the applicant cannot be considered
to be an affected or an interested party to either of the writ petitions.
In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that both the applications for
impleadment as a party respondent are meritless and are dismissed.
7. For the foregoing reasons, CAN 1 of 2021 in WPA 16713 of 2019 and
CAN 1 of 2021 in WPA 16013 of 2019 are dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)
