Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Suman Kumar Singha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2023
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA
,
WPA 11760 of 2019
Suman Kumar Singha
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjit Jaiswal
Mr. Parthasarathi Chakraborty
...Advocates
For the State : Mr. Susovan Sengupta
Mr. Subir Pal
...Advocates
For the respondent no.6 : Mr. P.S. Deb Barman
Mr. Golam Mohiuddin
Ms. Puja Mondal
... Advocates
Heard on : 09.01.2023 & 10.01.2023
Judgment on : 10.01.2023
JAY SENGUPTA, J:
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for a direction upon the concerned authorities to rescind, cancel
and/or withdraw the purported memo bearing No.822/SCFS/R'hat/18
dated 03.10.2018 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies,
Rampurhat, Birbhum.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as
follows. The petitioner's uncle, since deceased, was a fair price shop-cum
kerosene oil dealer. On 12.01.2009, the said dealer made an application for
transfer of his licence in favour of the petitioner as he was suffering from
illness. He made another such application on 27.07.2009. On 20.07.2012,
the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Rampurhat, forwarded the
entire file to the Director, Dte. of D.D.P. & S (F&S) for obtaining approval.
However, the petitioner passed away on 19.07.2018. Till then, the
application made by the said dealer had not been disposed of by the
concerned authority. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for
engagement on compassionate ground on 20.07.2018. He made another
application on 27.08.2018. By an order dated 19.11.2018, the Sub-
Divisional Controller (F&S), Rampurhat forwarded the rejection of the
petitioner's prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears
that in the meantime, the respondent no.6, who was actually working as
maidservant at the house of the said M.R. dealer, claimed appointment in
place of the M.R. dealer on compassionate ground. She further falsely
claimed that she was the widow of the said M.R. dealer. Reliance is placed
on a letter written by the M.R. dealer trying to nominate the present
petitioner to run the business where it was categorically mentioned that the
petitioner was not married. Since the petitioner was a bachelor and as
such, had no family members belonging to Class-I heirs under the Hindu
Succession Act, the petitioner would fairly be treated as an heir and hence,
a family member as he belonged to the Class-II heirs under the Hindu
Succession Act. Secondly, the application made by the erstwhile M.R. dealer
was not disposed of in time. Therefore, the cause of action would continue
and the petitioner ought to get benefit of such nomination.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.6 submits
as follows. 'Nephew' does not fall within the definition of 'family member'
under 2(m) of the Control Order of 2013. Therefore, there is no question of
the petitioner being granted compassionate appointment. So far as the
purported nomination of the M.R. dealer during his lifetime is concerned,
the same had spent its force as it was not disposed of by the authority
concerned. So far as the respondent no.6 is concerned, she has been
recommended for the said dealership on compassionate ground as she could
prima facie show that she was the widow of the former M.R. dealer. The
petitioner has not made any independent application for appointment on
compassionate ground in proper form.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows.
As has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.6, a
nephew cannot claim to be a family member so as to become entitled to
appointment on compassionate ground. So far as the alleged nomination
made by the M.R. dealer during his lifetime is concerned, the same has no
value now as the petitioner has passed away. On this, reliance is placed on
the decision of a Division Bench of this Court passed on 05.08.2022 in the
case of Gurupada Das Vs. State of West Bengal and others in M.A.T. 842
of 2022 with I.A. CAN 1 of 2022.
I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties and have perused the writ petition and the affidavits
filed.
It is quite evident that a 'nephew' does not fall within the purview of a
'family member' as per 2(m) of the Control Order, 2013. The law on
compassionate appointment in respect of the Control Order in question
would have to be governed as per the Scheme and provisions of law
pertaining to the same and not as per the Hindu Succession Act. In any
event, a licence to run such a shop is not a heritable property.
Secondly, the purported nomination of an M.R. dealer during his
lifetime can only operate during his lifetime. As no decision was taken on
the same during the lifetime of M.R. dealer, the same would not have any
value thereafter. This has been made amply clear by a Division Bench of
this High Court in the case of Gurupada Das (supra).
The question of entitlement of the respondent no.6 to the M.R.
dealership in question need not be gone into in this application. A process is
already on and the respondent authorities would be free to deal with the
same.
Therefore, so far as the present application is concerned, this Court
does not find any merit in this application.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made
available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J)
