Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Munshi Jahanara Khatun vs Nazia Begam & Ors on 13 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
M.A.T. 1733 of 2024
(CAN 1 of 2024)
(CAN 2 of 2024)
Munshi Jahanara Khatun
-Vs-
Nazia Begam & Ors.
For the Applicant : Mr. Biswanath Chakrabarti, Adv.,
Mr. Krishnendu Bera, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Swapan Kumar Datta, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Dipankar Das Gupta, Adv.
Heard on : 13.09.2024
Judgment on : 13.09.2024
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-
1. Applicant has prayed for leave to appeal to assail judgment and
order dated 23.08.2024 whereby decision of the Sub Divisional
Controller not to grant license to the writ petitioner/respondent viz
Nazia Begam was set aside and the authority concerned was
directed to issue license in her favour.
2. Factual matrix giving rise to the application are as follows:-
3. Munshi Jahanara Khatun, applicant herein, was the owner of an M.
R. License No.1080/MR and S. K. Oil License No.113/K/DK/09. In
1988 she prayed for induction of writ petitioner/respondent due to
financial stringency. Her prayer was allowed and a joint license was
issued in favour of Nazia Begam and the applicant in 2000. In
November, 2011, applicant surrendered her license which was
accepted by the authority. Thereafter, Nazia Begam prayed licenses
be issued in her favour in individual capacity. Respondent authority
did not consider her prayer and two writ petitions being WP
No.1105 of 2011 and WP No.41 of 2012 came to be filed. Writ
petitions were disposed of directing the Sub Divisional Controller,
Food and Supplies (SCFS in short) to take a decision in the matter.
Thereupon, respondent authority by the impugned order dated
02.09.2016 rejected Nazia's prayer to issue licenses in her favour.
This came to be challenged in the present proceeding. Hon'ble
Single Judge relying on the ratio in Amitava Datta Vs. State of West
Bengal1 and Utpal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal2, inter alia, held
upon relinquishment of right by the co-partner, Nazia was entitled
to a license in individual capacity.
4. Applicant had already surrendered her license in 2011. During the
hearing of the writ petition, she made an application for addition of
2012 SCC OnLine Cal 3983
WPA 7087 of 2019 dated 14.12.2023
party in the proceeding. Without giving an opportunity of hearing to
the applicant, writ petition was allowed.
5. Learned Advocate for applicant contends his client was the original
licensee. Due to financial stringency, Nazia had been inducted as a
co-partner and a joint license was issued in 2000. Till the impugned
order was passed provisional joint licenses had been issued from
time to time. She had taken out an application for recalling her
surrender. No order had been passed on the said representation till
date. Hence, applicant ought to have been given an opportunity of
hearing before directing issuance of license in favour of Nazia.
6. We are unimpressed by his submission. Admittedly, applicant had
surrendered her license in 2011. Application for surrender was
accepted and acted upon. After a lapse of a decade she took out an
application for recalling the surrender.
7. Mr. Chakrabarti contends an Hon'ble Single Judge in WPA 16344 of
2023 had directed the authorities to take a decision in the matter.
No decision has been taken till date but by the impugned order the
license was directed to be issued in favour of Nazia Begam alone.
8. We do not wish to make any comment with regard to merits of the
representation made by applicant to withdraw her surrender after a
decade. It is open to the respondent authorities to take necessary
decision in the matter in light of aforesaid observation. However, till
her surrender is recalled, she has no legal right to canvass in
respect of the license in question.
9. Accordingly, applicant cannot be said to be a person aggrieved by
the impugned order. However, it is left open to the applicant to seek
necessary redress in the event her representation for recall is
favourably considered by the respondent authorities.
10. With this observation, application for leave to prefer appeal being
CAN 1 of 2024 is disposed of.
11. Consequently, appeal and the connected application are also
disposed of.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
13. Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to
the parties on compliance of all formalities.
I agree.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
as
