Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Debika Pramanick vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 July, 2023
Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Appellate Side
Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
WPA 16521 of 2023
Debika Pramanick
-Vs.-
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Guddu Singh,
Ms. Soma Chakraborty
For the State : Mr. Suman Sengupta,
Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick
Heard & Judgment on : 20.07.2023
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is the married
daughter of one Bimal Krishna Pramanick, since deceased. After the
death of the said Bimal Krishna Pramanick the petitioner filed an
application for renewal of licence in her favour. The authority made
an inspection in accordance with the provisions contained in the
WBPDS (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013. Petitioner's case was
recommended by the inspecting team. But she was not granted
licence. She made a representation to the Director, DDP&S,
Government of West Bengal. Her representation was not considered.
So is the instant writ petition praying for a direction upon the
respondent no. 5 to consider her representation in accordance with
law. The learned Counsel for the State of West Bengal, at the outset,
submits that the petitioner has twisted the fact of the case in such a
manner so that it is apparently assumed that the prayer of the
petitioner was on compassionate ground as contained under Clause
20 of the Control Order, 2013.
However, the fact remains that after the death of the said Bimal
Krishna Pramanick none of the 'family members' of Bimal Krishna
Pramanick, since deceased, applied for grant of licence on
compassionate ground. Therefore, a fresh vacancy notification was
issued sometimes on or about 19 th April, 2022. The petitioner along
with two other persons took part in the said selection process by filing
online application. During inspection, petitioner's case was not
considered because of the fact that the petitioner had shown a
property owned by her mother as the proposed site of godown and
fair price shop. However, the mother of the petitioner did not transfer
the property in favour of the petitioner. The property was also not
taken in long term lease by the petitioner. In view of such
circumstances, the inspecting team held that the petitioner had no
land where she may construct a godown and fair price shop. The
inspecting team considered the applications of one Sadhan Pramanick
and the present petitioner on different aspects of the matter, viz., size
of the godown, size of attached shop, nature of possession, proximity
of the shop, building type, availability of place for uploading domicile
category of the applicant etc. From the inspection report it appears
that one Sadhan Pramanick obtained the score of 61 out of 75 while
the petitioner got the score of 42 out of the same marks. Considering
the inspection report, I do not find any case in support of the
petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed.
The report submitted by the learned Advocate for the State
respondents be kept with the record.
[Bibek Chaudhuri, J.]
Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)
Item No. 06.
