Ashok Halder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 4951 Cal

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ashok Halder vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 24 September, 2024

Author: Joymalya Bagchi

Bench: Joymalya Bagchi

Sl. No. 98




                 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. 1442 of 2024
                               (CAN 1 of 2024)

                               Ashok Halder
                                   -Vs-
                        State of West Bengal & Ors.


For the Appellant      :      Mr. Syed E. Huda, Adv.
                              Sk. Aptabuddin, Adv.
                              Mr. Himadri Roy, Adv.
                              Ms. Nabella Akbar, Adv.


For Respondent No. 6 :        Mr. Samin Ahammed, Adv.

Mr. Aniruddha Singh, Adv.

Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Adv.

For the State          :      Mr. T. M. Siddique, Adv.
                              Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee, Adv.
                              Mr. Suddhadev Adak, Adv.

Heard on               :      24.09.2024



Judgment on            :      24.09.2024


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

1. By the impugned order the authority concerned was directed to fill

up the proposed vacancy in accordance with law and in terms of the

notification and Government order dated 17.08.2021.

2. Learned Advocate for the appellant argues his client had applied

for the vacancy and was found eligible for appointment by the District

level fair price shop selection committee. He further submits appellant

has an attached shop and accordingly, the prescribed area i.e. 200 sq. ft.

may be reduced to 100 sq. ft. as per Government order dated 17.08.2021.

Accordingly, the Hon'ble Single Judge ought to have issued a mandamus

upon the authority concerned to appoint him to the vacancy as per

Government order dated 17.08.2021.

3. Appellant as well as private respondent no.6 had applied for the

fair price shop vacancy. Though private respondent no.6 was found

eligible and offer letter was issued, this came to be challenged by the

appellant in the present writ petition.

4. During hearing of the writ petition, Hon'ble Single Judge held

private respondent no.6 was ineligible as he did not have a registered

lease agreement in respect of the site on the date of application as per

paragraph 5 of Government order dated 17.08.2021. Accordingly, Hon'ble

Single Judge cancelled his appointment. With regard to the appellant,

Hon'ble Single Judge held area of the proposed shop room did not satisfy

the prescribed size i.e. 200 sq. ft. but in the event the same is an attached

shop room the said criteria is reduced to 100 sq. ft. which may be

considered by the appropriate authority.

5. Under such circumstances, Hon'ble Single Judge directed the

authority concerned to fill up the vacancy in light of the notification and

Government order dated 17.08.2021.

6. We find no reason to interfere with the order impugned save and

except directing the authority concerned to consider the case of the

appellant in light of the notification and Government order dated

17.08.2021 within eight weeks from the date of communication of this

order.

7. With the aforesaid direction, appeal is disposed of.

8. In view of disposal of the appeal, connected application being CAN

1 of 2024 is also disposed of.

9. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. 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.)

akd