Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sabita Pramanick vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Hon'ble Justice Chitta Ranjan Dash
AND
Hon'ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen
MAT 769 of 2022
Sabita Pramanick
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Bikash Ch. Das, Adv.
Mr. Mahadeb Sarkar , Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sirsanya Bandapadhyay, Adv.
Ms. Tapati Samanta, Adv.
Last Heard on: : 23.03.2023
Judgment on. : 31.03.2023
PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J. : -
1. In this intra-court appeal, the order dated 04.05.2022 as passed in
WPA No.7819 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court has been
assailed. By the impugned order the Hon'ble Single Bench while disposing
the said writ petition has been pleased to reject the prayer of the writ
petitioner seeking engagement on compassionate ground as a MR Dealer
in place of her deceased husband. The writ petitioner felt aggrieved and
thus preferred the instant appeal.
2. In support of the instant appeal Mr. Das, learned advocate for the
writ petitioner/appellant at the very outset draws attention of this Court
2
to the Annexure P4 i.e. the copy of Memo No.70/MR/SCF&S/BGN/21
dated 08.01.2021 as passed by Sub-divisional Controller (F&S), Bongaon,
North-24-Parganas whereby and whereunder one Bimal Krishna
Pramanick, since deceased, the husband of the writ petitioner/ appellant
herein was exempted to act as a MR Dealer on account of his voluntary
surrender of FPS Licence on medical ground. Attention of this Court is
also drawn to Annexure P3 i.e. the copy of the advertisement seeking
appointment of MR Dealer by the respondent/State in village Aasharu
where the deceased husband of the writ petitioner/ appellant used to
carry on his business of MR Dealership. It is argued by Mr. Das that the
State/respondents ought not to have published such advertisement
seeking dealership in the said village especially when the present writ
petitioner/ appellant had sought for appointment on compassionate
ground in respect of the dealership as has been granted in favour of the
deceased husband of the writ petitioner. It is further argued on behalf of
the writ petitioner/appellant that since the MR Licence standing in the
name of the husband of the writ petitioner/appellant was never
terminated, the State/respondents ought to have considered the prayer of
the writ petitioner /appellant for compassionate appointment of MR
Dealership in a fabourable manner and in not doing so the principle of
natural justice has been violated which affects the fundamental rights of
the present appellant as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. Mr. Das thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant
appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
3. Per contra, Mr. Bandapadhyay, in course of his argument took us
to Annexure P6, P7, P8 and P10. It is argued by Mr. Bandapadhyay,
learned advocate for the State/respondents that from the aforesaid copies
of the paper it would reveal that the husband of the present writ
petitioner/ appellant had voluntarily surrendered his MR Dealership on
account of his ill health and accordingly he was exempted from his duties
to act as a MR dealer on and from 02.06.2013. It is further argued by Mr.
Bandapadhyay that even after such exemption neither the writ
petitioner/appellant herein being the wife of the deceased MR dealer nor
any of his other legal heirs approached the State /respondents for
appointment on compassionate ground and suddenly the present
appellant woke up from her eternal slumber and applied for MR
Dealership on compassionate ground in the year 2021 when the original
MR Dealer Bimal Krishna Pramanick was no more in the earth.
4. Drawing attention to Clause 20(vi) of WBPDS (Maintenance and
Control) Order, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order, 2013',
it has been argued that an application for appointment of MR Dealer on
compassionate ground can be entertained only when dealership licence of
original MR Dealer remains valid. It is thus argued on behalf of the
State/respondents that since on the day of application by the present writ
petitioner/appellant, the licence of Bimal Krishna Pramanick, since
deceased stood terminated and not existing on account of his voluntary
surrender thereof, the present writ petitioner/appellant cannot claim her
right of appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Bandapadhyay,
learned advocate for the State/respondents thus submits that it is a fit
case for dismissal of the instant appeal.
5. On perusal of the entire materials as placed before us and after
giving due consideration over the submissions of the learned advocates
for the contending parties, it appears to us that for effective disposal of
the instant appeal a look to the provisions of Clause 20 (vi) of the Control
Order, 2013 is necessary and thus the same is reproduced hereunder in
verbatim:-
"(vi)Engagement on compassionate grounds: (a) In case of
death or in case of incapacitation on medical ground subject to
satisfaction of the authority, of any existing dealer, prayer of
any of the family members of the deceased/incapacitated
dealer having no regular means of income, may be considered
on compassionate ground if such prayer along with formal
application in Form C2 along with Annexure-I with requisite fee
as prescribed in Schedule A, corroborative documents as per
checklist and "No Objection" from other family member in the
form of an Affidavit to be sworn before a Magistrate in
Annexure-II is submitted:
Provided that in case of death of a licensee such prayer is
submitted within 90 days from the date of death of the
licensee:
Provided further that the licensing authority may, on just and
sufficient grounds shown by the applicant and for the reasons
to be recorded in writing, accept such application upto 120
days from the date of death of the licensee:
Provided further that "No Objection" is not required if the
applicant be the spouse of the deceased licensee or if the
licensee, because of his/ her being incapacitated /infirm has
opts the name of the applicant."
6. Keeping in mind the provisions of the aforementioned
Clause(Emphasis supplied by us), if we look to the facts and
circumstances as involved in this appeal, it appears to us that there is no
dispute that as per the prayer of the deceased husband of the present writ
petitioner/appellant his MR Dealer licence was terminated with effect
from 02.06.2013 on medical ground since the said deceased MR Dealer
voluntarily surrendered his FPS licence to the State/respondents. It
further reveals that immediately thereafter the account of the said MR
Dealer was directed to be tagged with three separate temporary counters.
It has also been placed on record that considering the difficulties in
tagging the account of said MR Dealer with other MR Dealers, the
State/respondents requested the said MR Dealer Bimal Krishna
Pramanick (husband of the appellant), since deceased to continue his MR
business for some more time for the interest of public distribution before
the ensuing Panchayat Election , 2013. However subsequently respondent
no.4/authority directed the Area Inspector Bagdah, North-24-Parganas to
submit proposals for three new resultant vacancies and probably for
which the vacancy notification were published in the newspaper dated
19.04.2022.
7. However, in our considered view such publication of notification in
the newspaper has got little relevance in the instant lis in as much as the
present appellant has no right to seek engagement on compassionate
ground because of the fact that on the day of her application the MR
Dealer licence standing in the name of her deceased husband, Bimal
Krishna Pramanick stood terminated long back and was not in existence
on account of the voluntary surrender of such licence by her deceased
husband during his life time. Such being the position, we thus find that
the Hon'ble Single Bench is very much justified in rejecting the prayer of
the writ petitioner.
8. We thus find no merit in the instant appeal and accordingly the
instant appeal is dismissed but without cost.
9. Consequently the impugned order dated 04.05.2022 as passed in
WPA No.7819 of 2022 by the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Hon'ble Court is
hereby upheld .
10. The interim order of stay as passed by this Court on 13.01.2023
stands hereby vacated.
11. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be
given to the parties on completion of usual formalities.
I agree.
(Chitta Ranjan Dash, J.) (Partha Sarathi Sen, J.)
