Md. Hossain Ali vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2018 Cal

                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                             Appellate Side
 Present:
 The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta

                         WPA 22079 of 2022

                            Md. Hossain Ali
                                  Vs.
                       State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner           : Md. Harun-All-Rashid
                               Mr. Azizul Islam

For the State                 : Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
                                Mr. Prantik Garai



 Heard on                      : 27.03.2023

 Judgment on                   : 27.03.2023


 Jay Sengupta, J.:


       This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

 India praying for direction upon the respondent authorities to make

an enquiry for filling up the vacancy of dealership of new fair price

shop at Mahammadpur Mouza under Patikabari Gram Panchayat,

Police Station Nowda in the district of Murshidabad.

No one appears on behalf of the private respondents, although

the petitioner and the State are represented.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner was eligible for obtaining the dealership in

question. He had earlier made an application in the year 2019 when a

notification was issued in respect of the dealership in question.

However, the same was not proceeded with and a fresh notification

was issued vide memo no. 592/SCFS/BER/2022 dated 11.05.2022.

Before applying for the dealership, the petitioner made the payment of

the relevant sum of application fee through treasury challan.

Thereafter, he duly applied at the Web Portal of the Department for

such dealership and after the application was uploaded it was shown

that the same was successful. The application was submitted on 14th

June, 2022. Since, there was no response in respect of the same, the

petitioner made another application. Subsequently, the petitioner

learnt that no enquiry has been directed in respect of the petitioner's

application because apparently the application fee was not paid

through the GRIPS portal and paid only through treasury challan.

Learned counsel representing the respondent authorities

submits as follows. That the web portal showed that the application

was successfully uploaded pertains only to the uploading of the

application. Subsequently, enquiry has to be made as to whether the

money is paid as application fee through the relevant portal. The FPS

vacancy notice clearly mentioned that "The application fee has to be

deposited through GRIPS portal under the Head of Account 0408-00-

101-001-16" . It could not have been paid in any other form. The

petitioner ought to have read the vacancy notice carefully. An enquiry

process is already on. If the petitioner is allowed to apply afresh, the

entire process will be jeopardized and this will open flood gates in

respect all those defective applications that might have been made for

such vacancy notices.

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels for the

parties and have perused the writ petition, the report and the

affidavits.

It is not in doubt that the vacancy notice contained specific

stipulation that the application fee was to be deposited through GRIPS

portal under the particular Account Head. Admittedly, the same was

not done in this case. The process of filling up of vacancy is already

on.

In view of the non-payment of application fee under the proper

head and through the relevant portal, the petitioner's application

cannot be treated as an valid application.

Moreover, a person who vies for dealing with public distribution

system cannot act in such an unmindful and casual manner while

applying for such engagement.

On the other hand, there is also much merit in the submission

of the respondent authorities that if such defects are allowed to be

cured at such a mature stage of enquiry, flood gates will open and all

the applicants filing defective petitions would come and stall

proceedings at different stages.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I find no merit

in this application.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment may be

delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon

compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.) tbsr