Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Md. Asraful Islam vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 25 September, 2024
DL - 07 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
25.09.2024 CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
Ct No. 25 APPELLATE SIDE
S.Das
WPA 24522 of 2024
Md. Asraful Islam
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saptansu Basu, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala, Adv,
Ms. Nibedita Pal, Adv,
Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Adv,
Ms. Sonam Ray, Adv,
Ms. N. Khatoon,Adv
.......for the petitioner.
Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Ld. Jr. Standing Counsel.
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Ganguly
...for the State Respondents.
Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner
today is taken on record.
The petitioner has challenged in this case the
order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17th
September, 2024 and the subsequent suspension order of
his M. R Dealership, by the Sub Divisional Controller( F &
S), Malda Sadar, i.e., dated 18th September, 2024.
Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appears for the
petitioner being ably assisted by Ms. Pal and other learned
advocates.
The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner,
inter alia, is with regard to the vagueness of the show cause
notice which, allegedly is devoid of any specific charges
against the present petitioner. The outcome of the
inspection done, which has been relied on by the
respondent authorities, in coming to the findings as
regards the alleged illegality committed by the petitioner, is
also stated to be non-specific and unworthy to be relied on.
Allegations have also been made with regard to the
issuance of the second show cause notice during
subsistence of the earlier show cause notice, without any
substantial change being made or new charges being
brought therein, against the petitioner. The petitioner is
aggrieved also with regard to the fact that he has been
charged with such kind of alleged purported unlawful
actions, for which he, as the M. R. Dealer, would not be
liable under the law, to maintain any data as regards the
ration card population. According to the petitioner, the
liability is only bestowed on the respondent Authority, for
issuance of ration card etc.
Hence, the punitive action taken by the respondent,
vide orders dated 17th and 18th September, 2024, are
challenged in this writ petition with the prayer for those to
be set aside.
To this submission of the petitioner, the State
Authority has serious objections to raise.
Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Junior Standing
Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the
petitioner has been continuously and for substantial period
of time indulging into the act of black marketing and
siphoning of the food articles by misusing the dealership
granted to him. He has taken this court to the proceedings
of enquiry and submitted that the petitioner has all along
evaded answering the pertinent questions touching the root
of the allegations against him.
Under such circumstances, according to Mr.
Bandopadhyay, ld. Jr. standing counsel, the steps taken by
the respondent Authority against the writ petitioner is only
in accordance with law and there may not be any
interference by this court as to the decisions taken by the
Appellate Authority as well as the Sub Divisional
Controller( F & S), Malda Sadar regarding suspension of M.
R. Dealership of the present petitioner.
Heard submissions. Perused the documents
available on record and the relevant provisions of the
Control Order, the Judgments cited by the parties.
It appears that the matter is required to be heard
on affidavits.
For the reasons as above, the respondent is
directed to file affidavit-in-opposition in this case, i.e.,
within a period of two weeks after reopening of Court, after
the Puja vacation.
Affidavit-in-reply, if any, be filed within a week
thereafter.
In the meantime, there shall be an order of stay as
regards the operation of the order of penalty imposed upon
the petitioner for depositing of a sum of Rs.7,85,61,044/-,
vide Memo dated July 30, 2022.
So far as the suspension order dated September 18,
2024 is concerned, Mr. Bandopadhyay, ld. jr. standing
counsel informs the court that the same has been made
effective by this time.
Let not any further steps, as regards the same, be
taken by the respondent Authorities, like declaration of
vacancy or undertaking any process for grant of dealership
afresh to some third person, for the period till the next date
of hearing.
Let this matter be adjourned today and be listed
before the Hon'ble Regular Bench having determination, as
per the convenience of the same.
Parties would be at liberty to mention this matter
at the earliest before the Regular Bench.
All parties are to act in terms of a copy of this
order duly downloaded from the official website of this
court.
( Rai Chattopadhyay, J. )
