Rafikul Islam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4860 Cal

Form J(2)       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
               CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                              Appellate Side


Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri


                         WPA 26482 of 2022


                          Rafikul Islam
                                Vs.
                   The State of West Bengal & Ors.


Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee
            ..for the petitioner

Mr. D. Banerjee
           ..for the respondent No.7 and 8

Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
           ..for the State

Item No.11

Heard & Judgment on:           08.08.2023

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

One Mabia Bewa, respondent No.8 herein was a licensee in

respect of a fair price shop at village Saralpur within P.S. Ranitala, in

the district of Murshidabad. The petitioner is one of the sons of the

said respondent No.8. It is the case of the petitioner that due to

medical incapacitation the respondent No.8 wanted to transfer her

licence of the said fair price shop in the name of the petitioner and on

5th August, 2022 she had sworn an affidavit stating, inter alia, that

she wanted to transfer the licence in the name of the petitioner. The

petitioner made a formal application on 8th August, 2022 along with

an affidavit duly sworn by him in prescribed format. The said

application has not been disposed of or the petitioner did not receive

any communication from the State respondents as to the fate of his

application. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the

private respondent No.7 had confined his mother in his residence and

putting pressure upon her to issue a certificate of grant of licence in

favour of the respondent No.7 changing her previous affidavit dated

5th August, 2022.

Though the petitioner was not aware as to whether the

respondent No.7 had filed any application for grant of licence on

compassionate ground in favour of the respondent No.7, he came to

know from the website of the Food & Supplies Department that the

licence was changed in the name of the respondent No.7. The

petitioner immediately made a representation before the concerned

authority but the said representation was also unheard.

The parties have entered appearance. A report in the form of

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents.

Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition.

The petitioner in turn filed affidavit-in-reply against such opposition.

It appears from the order dated 4 th January, 2023 that a co-

ordinate Bench directed the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies

Department of the concerned jurisdiction to examine the original

licensee. The original licensee was examined and her examination

was videographed. When it was informed to the earlier Bench having

determination, the Hon'ble Jay Sengupta, J., directed the State

Respondents to produce the videography in a pen drive and the

record of the case which learned advocate for the State has filed in

open Court. It is ascertained from the said videography that the

original licensee was examined by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food

& Supplies Department and she clearly stated that she wants to

transfer her licence in favour of the respondent No.7. It appears from

the office record that on the basis of the application filed by the

petitioner the Sub-Divisional Controller directed the petitioner to

appear before him along with the original licensee i.e., his mother on

2nd September, 2022. However, he prayed for an adjournment of

hearing on 2nd September, 2022 due to the illness of his mother.

Thus, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he was not

given opportunity of hearing before granting licence in favour of

respondent No.7.

On perusal of the office record, I find that the petitioner was

given opportunity more than once to appear before the Sub-Divisional

Controller along with his mother. He failed to take her mother before

the Sub-Divisional Controller. On the other hand, respondent No.7

took the original licensee and the Sub-Divisional Controller examined

her. On due consideration of examination of the original licensee, the

licence was granted in favour of the respondent No.7. On perusal of

the office record I do not find any arbitrariness or mala fide on the

part of the State respondent in granting licence in favour of the

respondent No.7. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of any

merit is dismissed on contest.

There shall be, however, no order as to costs.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)