Anima Mondal Naskar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3173 Cal

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

                            WPA 53 of 2023
                        Anima Mondal Naskar
                                  Vs.
                       State of West Bengal & Ors.

     For the Petitioner       : Mr. Krishnendu Bera
                                Mr. Subhendu Banerjee

     For the State            : Mr. T.M. Siddiqui
                                Ms. Adreeka Panday
                                Mr. Susovan Sengupta
Heard on                       : 03.05.2023

Judgment on                    : 03.05.2023


Jay Sengupta, J.:
      This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent

authorities not to give effect to the memo being No. 1228/SC/FS/BRP

dated 21.11.2022 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food &

Supply), Baruipur, South 24 parganas.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits

as follows. The petitioner is an MR Dealer having 10828 cards

attached. There was no complaint against him regarding his

performance as a dealer. Yet, a vacancy notification was issued for

the same area. There are several other FPS dealers having more cards

than the present petitioner in whose area no vacancy notice has been

declared. This must be for some extraneous consideration. A uniform

approach has to be followed and only the petitioner cannot be targeted

in the name of implementing a new policy. Moreover, according to the

paragraph 20 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System

(Maintenance & Control) Order, 2013, the last date of receiving an

application shall be 30 days from the date of notification of vacancy.

However, in the present notice, only 21 days have been given.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as

follows. As regards the period of notice, the same is covered by an

amendment dated 9th August, 2021 whereby the period of notice was

reduced from 30 day to 21 days. On merits, the policy for

rationalizing ration cards vis-a-vis the MR Dealers has been

undertaking in an uniform manner. Wherever there is a need, first

the said area is given preference. However, rationalization will be

done in all areas. In any event, the petitioner does not have right to

claim a minimum number of ration cards to be attached to the

dealership. However, the earlier policy of having a minimum for the

existing cards, as amended from time to time and as has been

annexed to the report of the State, is being followed.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have

perused the writ petition, the report and the exception.

It appears that the petitioner has cards in the range of more

than 10000.

Even, as per the copy of the latest policy document as regards

the minimum number of cards available in the Report, the number the

cards for existing FPS should be retained in the range of 5000 to 6500

and the new FPS may start with a range 3000 to 4500. Even if, the

maximum number of ration cards for new FPS is deducted from the

existing cards of the present petitioner he would still retain the

minimum cards as suggested in the memo dated 11.02.2022.

Furthermore, it is not for the petitioner to dictate from where

the respondent authorities would start the process of rationalization.

It has been undertaken by the State that they are going to

implement the process of rationalization as per need in respect of all

the areas. Therefore, there is no need for interference.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this case.

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of without any

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