Jamil Ahmed vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5120 Cal

                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                  CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                            APPELLATE SIDE


The Hon'ble JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI


                            WPA/18585/2023

                               Jamil Ahmed
                                    -Vs-
                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Petitioner:             Mr. Debasis Sur, Adv.,
                                Mr. Angsuman Patra, Adv.

For the Respondent No.3:        Mr. Biswanath Chakrabarti, Adv.,

`                               Mr. Krishnendu Bera, Adv.,
                                Ms. Deblina Chakraborty, Adv.

For the State:-                 Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv.,
                                Ms. Debasree Dhamali, Adv.

Heard on: 17 August, 2023.
Judgment on: 17 August, 2023.

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J. : -

1. It is the case of the petitioner that he along with private respondent

No.3 are the joint owners of Rationing Shop No.FPS-B/17 situated in

holding No.272 at Dharampur within Post Office Burnpur, in the district

of Paschim Bardhaman. The said premises are jointly owned by the

petitioner and the respondent No.3. In view of property dispute between

the petitioner and the respondent No.3 no trade licence/rationing licence

was issued in favour of the respondent No.3 since 2015. In order to

regularize the trade licence/rationing licence, the private respondent very

cleverly and tactfully applied for changing the venue of business from

holding No.272 to 106/A/271 which is also jointly owned dwelling house

of both the petitioner and respondent No.3. Suppressing the fact, the

private respondent has submitted that Premises No.106/A/271 is

exclusively owned and possessed by him. It is also stated by the petitioner

that the private respondent has been appointed receiver by a competent

civil court in respect of the business and joint family property being

holding No.272 by virtue of an order dated 20th July, 2013. It is alleged by

the petitioner that in violation of the aforesaid order, the state

respondents have been acting as per their whims and caprice and

allowing the private respondent to draw rationing commodities though he

does not possess any valid rationing licence since 2015. It is also

contended on behalf of the petitioner that no rationing licence was also

issued in the name of the private respondent No.3 at premises No.106/A-

271, Dharampur within P.S Burnpur.

2. Having heard the learned Advocates for the petitioner and the

private respondent No.3 it appears that the petitioner and private

respondent No.3 are two brothers. They inherited some property jointly

from their predecessor-in-interest. A civil suit is pending in respect of the

said joint property. In the said suit the respondent No.3 has been

appointed as a receiver. From the allegation made in the instant writ

petition, it is ascertained that since the ration shop was running in the

joint property of the petitioner and respondent No.3, the petitioner is of

the view that the fair price shop is being run jointly by the petitioner and

the respondent No.3. In other words, the petitioner has the equal share in

the business of fair price shop with respondent No.3.

3. The instant writ petition is absolutely misconceived. A licence of

dealership of fair price shop can only be granted in the name of more than

one person when the same is granted in the name of a partnership firm or

Self-Help Group or Samabay Samity etc. In the instant case licence was

granted in exclusive name of the respondent No.3. Over the said business

of fair price shop the petitioner has no right, title and interest since the

licence was not issued in his name.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the private respondent

that previously the ration shop was being run from holding No.272,

Dharampur which is a joint family property. When the dispute cropped up

regarding the running of business by respondent No.3 in the joint

property, he changed the address of the building in holding

No.106/A/271 which is absolutely his own property.

5. In view of the fact that no licence was granted in favour of the

petitioner, he cannot claim any right over the rationing business.

6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merit is

summarily dismissed.

7. There shall however, be no order as to cost.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)