Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Milani Kandar Bisai vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 October, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No. 22
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi
And
The Hon'ble Justice Gaurang Kanth
MAT 1845 of 2024
CAN 1 of 2024
Smt. Milani Kandar Bisai
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellant : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya
Mr. Aswini Kr. Bera
For the State : Sk. Md. Galib
Ms. Ashmita Chakraborty
Heard on : 01.10.2024
Judgment on : 01.10.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-
1. Appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 3.9.2024 whereby
appellant‟s application for selection as a fair price shop dealer was
rejected on the ground that she does not satisfy the eligibility
criteria.
2. Factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is to the effect that a
vacancy notification was advertised on 4.11.2022 with regard to a
fair price shop. Appellant and private respondent no. 5 applied in
response to the advertisement. A field enquiry was conducted on
11.1.2023 and on the strength of the enquiry report, sub-divisional
controller, inter alia, found the appellant ineligible for the following
reasons :-
"Applicant's proposed shop cum godown does not fulfil GO
1707- FS. Hence, not suitable. Location is in corner of
vacancy area and approach road is very narrow and not
accessible for four wheeler".
This came to be approved by the District Level Fair Price Shop
Selection Committee on 24.2.2023. We are informed a new notification for
filling up the vacancy has since been issued.
3. Mr. Bhattacharya disputes the finding in the enquiry report. He
submits the schedule to the deed of lease shows the area of godown
is 660 sqft. He also refers to a site plan wherein the godown is
shown as 403.5 sqft. and office area as 232 sqft.
4. Mr. Galib draws our attention to clause 50 of the enquiry report
which shows measurement of the godown is 385 sqft. which is
below the permissible criteria.
5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. GO no.
1707-FS inter alia prescribes minimum area of 400 sqft. for godown
and 200 sqft. for shop room. Enquiry report shows the godown of
the appellant is 385 sqft. which is below the prescribed limit. It is
also relevant to note that the character of land on which the shop
room is situated is described as „Jal‟. Nothing is placed on record to
show that the land had been converted to „Bastu' before the
decision of the District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee
on 24.2.2023. Moreover, documents relied by the appellant with
regard to size of the godown is inconsistent and does not inspire
confidence. While the schedule to the deed of lease area of the
godown is shown as 600 sqft., the sketch map appended thereto
specifies a different area.
6. Given this situation, neither the enquiry report nor the decision of
the District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee thereon can
be said to be faulty. Much water has flown since then and vacancy
notification has again been advertised and selection for the vacancy
is in process.
7. In such view of the matter we find no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
8. Appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
9. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Urgent Photostat certified copy of judgment, order if applied for be
given to the parties on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
tkm
