Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mati Lal Karan vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 September, 2024
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
Sl. No. 13
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 553 of 2023
CAN 1 of 2023
Mati Lal Karan
Vs
State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mrs. Usha Maiti
Ms. Anita Khatri
Mr. Sakya Maity
For the State : Mr. T M Siddique
Ms. Amrita Panja Moulick
Heard on : 14.8.2024, 23.8.2024 and 6.9.2024
Judgment on : 06.09.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:-
1. Appellant has assailed order dated 19th December 2022 whereby the
Hon'ble Single Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant with regard to
issuance of license on compassionate ground in favour of his brother
(respondent no. 6 herein) due to medical incapacitation of their father and
former licensee namely, Lalit Mohan Karan (since deceased) with regard to
MR dealership.
2. Lalit Mohan Karan was a licensee in respect of a ration shop. On
18.11.2017, he wrote a letter to the Sub-Divisioinal Controller stating due
to ill health he is unable to run the MR dealership and the dealership may
be transferred in favour of his son Hiralal Karan, respondent no. 6 herein.
3. It may be pertinent to note in the letter Lalit stated he had one son
and four married daughters. In terms of the said letter licence was
transferred in favour of Hiralal in 2019 on compassionate ground. Appellant
is the elder son of Lalit Mohan. During lifetime of his father, appellant was
unaware of transfer of licence in favour of his brother Hiralal. When Lalit
Mohan expired on 15.6.2020, appellant made representation before the
Sub-Divisional Controller to appoint him as a licensee on compassionate
ground. Thereafter on 22.7.2020 he submitted another letter stating that
his brother Hiralal has forcibly taken over running of the ration shop. When
he was informed that the licence had been transferred in favour of
respondent no. 6, he called upon the respondent authorities to hand over
relevant documents with regard to transfer of the licence. Pursuant thereto
documents were supplied to the appellant. Thereupon the appellant
approached this Court praying for setting aside the licence transferred in
favour of respondent no. 6 on compassionate ground.
4. It was argued before the Hon'ble Single Judge, that the
representation of Lalit Mohan is a fabricated one and contains incorrect
facts. It is not disclosed in the said letter that Lalit Mohan had another son
namely, the appellant.
5. After considering the submissions of the appellant, Hon'ble Single
Judge was of the view that licence had been validly transferred and
dismissed the writ petition.
6. Before us, Mrs. Maiti reiterates her submission that the licence was
transferred under most suspicious circumstances. Purported representation
of Lalit Mohan does not disclose he had two sons i.e. appellant and
respondent no.6. There was no enquiry conduced with regard to medical
incapacitation of the erstwhile licensee and transfer of licence was done in a
hurried manner. During lifetime of Lalit Mohan her client was unaware of
the transfer of licence and came to know such fact only upon documents
being supplied in February 2021.
7. In view of the aforesaid submissions we called upon the State to
submit a report enclosing relevant documents pertaining to the enquiry and
transfer of licence in favour of respondent no. 6. The report is placed on
record and circulated amongst the parties.
8. Referring to the report it is argued though representation of Lalit
Mohan was dated 8th November 2017, in the subsequent letter dated
9.4.2018 enclosing medical certificate it is recorded the representation was
made on 8.9.2017. It is also argued the medical certificate was submitted
under the cover of a subsequent letter dated 9.4.2018 while enquiry at the
behest of Sub-Divisional Controller was completed on 14.12.2017. Hence,
he could not have verified the subsequent medical certificate.
9. Clause 20(vi)(b) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System
(Maintenance & Control) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of
2013) lays down the procedure for dealing with a prayer for appointment of
a family member in place and stead of a medically incapacitated dealer. The
said sub-clause reads as follows :
"(b) The Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies shall arrange
for an enquiry to verify the eligibility of the applicant and submit
the report in Form L1 with his opinion and recommendation in
Form M1 to the District Controller, Food and Supplies within fifteen
days. While forwarding a case on medical ground the Sub-
divisional Controller should satisfy himself on examination of the
medical prescription and certificate issued by a Registered
Government Medical Practitioner that the ex-licensee is not in a
position to run dealership business considering his health ground.
The District Controller, Food & Supplies, shall forward the same
with his comments and recommendation to the Director, DDP&S
for necessary approval within seven days from the date of receipt
of report from the Sub- divisional Controller and the Director may
grant such approval within seven days".
10. We have examined the documents annexed to the report in light of
the aforesaid statutory rule. Erstwhile dealer i.e. Lalit Mohan made a
representation for transfer of his dealership in favour of respondent no. 6
due to medical incapacitation. The representation was inter alia
accompanied by a sworn affidavit by the said dealer. A spot enquiry was
held on 14.12.2017. The enquiry report dated 18.12.2017 was submitted
before the Sub-Divisional Controller. In the enquiry report it is noted as
follows:-
"In spot enquiry on 14-12-17 at Balipata, all original document
were verified. Medical unfit certificate in favour of incapable Lalit
Mohan Karan was submitted. Hence, license may be issued in
the name of Hira Lal Karan Son of Lalit Mohan Karan instead of
Lalit Mohan Karan."
Lalit Mohan also submitted a medical certificate issued by medical officer
on 19.03.2018, Pathra Primary Health Centre stating that he is suffering
from respiratory distress associated with memory loss since last year and is
totally unfit to do any normal work under cover of letter dated 9.4.2018.
The certificate had been issued by the medical officer after examining Lalit
Mohan on 19.03.2018.
11. Upon consideration of the aforesaid materials the Sub-Divisional
Controller was satisfied the licensee was medically incapacitated and
recommended transfer of the license in favour of his son respondent no. 6.
This came to be approved by the district controller and the license was
issued in 2019 in favour of respondent no. 6.
12. It is nobody's case that respondent no. 6 is not the son of the
erstwhile licensee Lalit Mohan or had independent income. However, it is
argued the appellant is another son and Lalit Mohan's representation gives
an incorrect picture that he had only one son. We are of the view nothing
turns on this incorrect representation. It is the discretion of the licensee to
recommend transfer of his licence due to medical incapacitation to anyone
of his family members who does not have regular means of income.
13. Sub-Divisional Controller conducting enquiry under clause 20(vi)(b)
of the Order of 2013 is not concerned whether there are other family
members to whom the licensee could have transferred the license. He is
required to enquire into the genuineness of the plea of medical
incapacitation of the licensee and the eligibility of the candidate in whose
favour the license is sought to be transferred. There is no dispute that the
respondent no. 6 is eligible for transfer. With regard to enquiry vis-à-vis
medical incapacitation we have examined the records and we note the
authorities concerned were satisfied with the certificate issued by a medical
officer of a public health centre with regard to the precarious health
condition of the licensee justifying transfer of license due to medical
incapacitation. We are also not impressed by the desperate plea that the
representation was not signed by Lalit Mohan as the same is accompanied
by a sworn affidavit duly verified during the enquiry held on 14.7.1999.
Inadvertent error recording a different date with regard to the
representation in the subsequent letter dated 19.3.2019 is of little
consequence.
14. Under such circumstances we are of the opinion proper enquiry as
per law had been conducted and upon satisfaction recorded by the
authorities concerned the licence was transferred in favour of respondent
no. 6 from his father due to the latter's medical incapacitation.
15. In light of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion order
impugned does not call for interference and the appeal is dismissed.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. 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.)
