Pitambar Flour Mills Private ... vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3532 Cal

              IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                     Appellate Side



Present:

The Hon'ble Justice Jay Sengupta



                       WPA 28320 of 2022
           Pitambar Flour Mills Private Limited & Anr.
                                Versus
                   State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the petitioner                : Mr. Ashok Banerjee
                                    Mr. Ramesh Dhara
                                    Ms. Mousumi Choudhury
                                                  .....Advocates

For the State                        : Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee
                                       Ms. Adreeka Pandey
                                                      .....Advocates

Heard lastly on                      : 23.02.2023

Judgment on                          : 18.05.2023

Jay Sengupta, J.:

1.    This is an application under article 226 of the Constitution

of    India, inter alia, praying for directions upon the respondent

to withdraw or cancel or rescind the decision of the

respondent authority rejecting the petitioners'

representation for re-inspection of the Flour Mill.

2. Mr. Banerjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner, submitted as follows. The petitioner no. 2 was a

director of the petitioner no. 1 company. The petitioners were

engaged in the business of conversion of wheat into 45

atta/wholemeal atta in the District of Howrah. Pursuant to

notifications issued by the competent authority from time to time,

the petitioner's firm was selected as Flour Mill of the respondent

in the District of Howrah. The West Bengal Public Distribution

Dystem (Empanelment of Flour Mill and Milling of Fortified

atta/wholemeal atta) Guidelines, 2017 was framed in pursuance

of clauses 36 and 37 of the Rural Control Order of 2013 and

clauses 33 and 34 of the Urban Control Order. For the present

engagement, after a notification was published for empanelment

of Flour Mill, the petitioner company applied for the same and the

concerned authorities issued a certificate about fitness of the

concern. After that an inspection notice was given. The

representatives of the respondent authorities came to inspect the

Flour Mill. However, one machine developed a problem and could

not function. Instead of observing the working for an hour, as

required, the Mill was made to operate for half an hour. When the

petitioner's men took up the issue with the inspectors, it was

understood that the accidental break in the operation of the

machine would not be taken into consideration for fixing the

allocation. The petitioners made a representation before the

respondent authorities for the re-inspection of the flour mill.

However, the same was not done. An order of empanelment was

passed on 23.02.2022. After that a list was published of some of

the empanelled flour mills giving out their provisional allocations.

The petitioner company had the lowest allocation. No basis was

cited for making such a low allocation. Thereafter, a

representation was given. In spite of re-inspection being ordered

to several other flour mills on their request, no re-inspection was

done in respect of the petitioner company. Besides, the reports

filed on behalf of the State respondents were affirmed true to

knowledge. That was obviously not proper as the deponent could

not have vouched for all those facts to be true to knowledge. In

fact, the two reports were quite contradictory. While in the first

report the petitioner's application and an inspection report were

annexed recording satisfaction regarding operation of the

machinery, in the second report a question was posed as to

whether proper machines were installed at the said flour Mill. It

was an admitted position that the petitioner made its application

for re-inspection before the empanelment and execution of the

agreement. This was quite in keeping with paragraph 10 of the

Guidelines. Thus, there could be no bar to have such a re-

inspection ordered. Denying re-inspection and arbitrarily giving

lower allocation of wheat to the petitioner could not be accepted.

3. Ms. Adreeka Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the State, submitted as follows. First, the petitioner had no

right to re-inspection. As regards the prayer in the writ petition of

not to touch the allocation, the contract between the parties and

the Guidelines did not warrant fixing of such allocation. The

entities that were inspected upon their request were those which

could not be empanelled for some reason or the other. That is

why re-inspection was necessary. But, the petitioner was

empanelled and an agreement was entered into with it. That is

why there was no need for a re-inspection. The petitioner could

not produce any document to show that a machine had broken

down. Inspection was done properly and the petitioner's

representative signed on the report. Therefore, there could not be

any question on the sequence of events during the inspection.

Clause 5 of the agreement contained certain provisions and the

petitioner was bound by them. Therefore, the petitioner could

neither claim re-inspection or a particular amount of quota. In

fact, reduction of allocation was there, inter alia, because a new

Mill was added. In fact, allocation would also depend on the quota

for the particular State fixed by the Central Government. Strong

reliance was placed on clause 10 of the Guidelines, particularly

sub-clause (2) and the proviso. From all these, it was abundantly

clear that the petitioner neither could claim to have right to a

particular quota of wheat nor any claim of re-inspection as of

right. If such re-inspection were allowed without sufficient

grounds, floodgates would open. It was germane to mention that

the petitioner had not challenged the vires of the Guidelines.

4. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused

the petition and the affidavits.

5. The prime contention of the petitioners is that in spite of re-

inspection being ordered to several other flour mills on their

request, no re-inspection was done in respect of the present

petitioner company. To this, the pointed reply of the respondent

authorities was that the entities that were inspected upon their

request were those which could not be empanelled for some

reason or the other. That is why re-inspection was necessary. But

the petitioner was empanelled and an agreement was entered into

with it. Therefore, there is no discrimination or arbitrariness in

this as those others were standing on a different footing.

6. In any event, the petitioner did not have any right to re-

inspection. Pertinently, in the instant case the petitioner's

representative purportedly signed on the report.

7. Secondly, neither the contract between the parties nor the

relevant Guidelines warrant fixing of a particular allocation.

Therefore, the petitioners could not even claim a right to a

particular allocation or quota of wheat. A reference may be made

to the proviso to Clause 10(2) of the Guidelines.

8. There is no place for encouraging monopolies either in

distribution of Government largesse or in the matter of public

engagement or employment. If the State comes up with guidelines

or policies which are in tune with the above, Courts would loathe

interfere with the same.

9. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the

State, in the particular case there was a reduction of allocation as

a new mill was added in the array of flour mills. In fact, allocation

would also depend on the quota for a particular State fixed by the

Central Government. All these vindicate the proposition that the

petitioners cannot claim right to a particular quota or allocation

of wheat.

10. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned

decision.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

12. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

13. 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.)

S.M