Monalisa Banerjee Majumder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3616 Cal

28     19.05.2023
tbsr   Ct. 39

                                      WPA 12346 of 2023
                                   Monalisa Banerjee Majumder
                                               Vs.
                                   State of West Bengal & Ors.

                             Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, ld. Sr. Adv.
                             Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh
                             Ms. Mousumi Choudhury
                                           .....for the petitioner
                             Mr. Subir pal
                                           .....for the State
                             Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala
                             Ms. Nibedita Pal
                             Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee
                             Ms. Sonam Ray
                                           .....for the private respondent

Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner

is taken on record.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits as follows. The petitioner was

an applicant in respect of a distributorship. Although

she had applied for the same, the fate of her application

was not intimated to her. This prompted her to file a

writ petition being WPA no. 10767 of 2023. On

04.05.2023 when the matter was taken up for hearing,

no one represented the State and the Court was

pleased to appoint learned counsels to represent the

State. However, notice in the writ petition had been

served on 2nd May, 2023. Surprisingly, an appointment

was made on 3rd May, 2023 itself and this was not

intimated before this Court when the matter came up

for hearing. Even on merits, the lease deed which has

been relied on by the private respondent does not

provide for a clear tenure of 10 years required for such

lease. In fact, there is lock-in period for two years

meaning thereby the lease can be terminated on certain

eventualities after such period.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

private respondent submits as follows. From the report

filed by the State in the earlier writ, it appears that

petitioner's application had been cancelled. Therefore,

she does not have any right to move this writ petition.

Moreover, there is no pleading as regards the lease

agreement in the writ petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State

submits that the dealer tagging was complete on 16th

May, 2023.

It appears that this matter has to be decided on

affidavits.

Let the respondents file affidavit in opposition

within a week from the reopening of the Court after the

ensuing summer vacation.

Reply, if any, be filed within a fortnight

therefrom.

Let this matter appear in the list under the same

heading along with WPA No. 10767 of 2023 on 28th

June, 2023.

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.)