Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sanjib Kumar Pal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 28 September, 2022
Form No. J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta
W.P.A. 22204 of 2022
Sanjib Kumar Pal
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner Mr. Basudev Rakshit
For the State respondent Mr. Susovan Sengupta
Mr. Abdus Salam
Heard on : 28.09.2022.
Judgment on : 28.09.2022.
Jay Sengupta, J.
This is an application praying for direction upon the
respondents to withdraw and/or revoke and/or rescind the impugned
order of rejection of the proposal for engagement of the petitioner as
Fair Price Shop Dealer on compassionate ground as contained in the
Memo No. 2553/FMR/13L-44/14 (Part) dated 25.07.2022.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
as follows. On 19.10.1966, a M.R. Shop license was issued to one
Niranjan Pal, since deceased. He died on 26.10.2021. On 10.01.2022,
the petitioner applied for engagement as a dealer being a near
relation. On 25.02.2022, the petitioner was called on for personal
hearing on 03.03.2022, when he appeared. On 17.05.2022, the
District Controller (F & S), Bankura sent a proposal for engagement of
the petitioner as dealer on compassionate ground to the respondent
no.2. However, on 25.07.2022, the respondent no.2 rejected the
proposal for engagement of dealer. On 06.09.2022 the order of
rejection was communicated to the petitioner. Although initially the
petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate ground
being a nephew of the deceased MR dealer, subsequently he took up a
stand that he was also the adopted son of the petitioner since he had
performed the last rights. First, the respondent no.2 erred in rejecting
the application of the petitioner merely because he could not be
treated as the adopted son of the said dealer. Secondly, as it appeared
from the definition of 'family member' and 'relative' as contained in the
amendments to the West Bengal Public Distribution System (
Maintenance & Control) Order, 2013, a nephew would come within
the definition of " relatives" . At the same time, it has been mentioned
therein that a relative would include family members and others. Now,
the provisions regarding compassionate appointment as contained in
the Control Order of 2013 give out that a family member of the
deceased having no regular means of subsistence would have the right
to be considered for engagement on compassionate ground. Therefore,
the petitioner being a nephew, thus a relative of the MR dealer, can
also apply on the ground of compassionate appointment because a
relative would be included in the ambit of a 'family member'.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as
follows. A relative as defined in sub-clause (xa) of clause (d) of
paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 2013 only defines 'relative' in an
inclusive manner, which is supposed to include family members and
the 'following' kin. A nephew of a dealer would obviously be treated as
a kin. Therefore, he would be treated as a 'relative'. However, that
does not bring him within the scope of a 'family member' as defined in
sub-clause (m) of clause ( c) of paragraph 2 of the said Control Order.
Moreover, the petitioner had been changing the stand as to his status
in respect of the dealer. He applied as a nephew, but subsequently he
claimed to be the adopted son of the dealer. However, he could not
produce any document to substantiate his subsequent claim.
Therefore, his application was rightly rejected by the respondent no.2.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing
on behalf of the parties and have perused the writ petition.
The petitioner's argument that since he is a nephew of the
deceased MR dealer and thus, a 'relative' would bring him within the
definition of a 'family member' is absolutely fallacious. From a plain
reading of the definition, it is abundantly clear that while all family
members would be included within the scope of 'relative', all relatives
would not come within the ambit of 'family member'. A nephew comes
within the definition of 'relative', but not 'family member'. So, the
petitioner cannot sustain a claim to the dealership on compassionate
on this score.
Moreover, the respondent no.2 rightly held that there was no
document to show that the petitioner was the adopted son of the
dealer.
Therefore, I do not find any merit in this case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered
to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon
compliance of all formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
ssi
