[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Calcutta High Court
M/S. Intercity Agencies Private ... vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 20 March, 2026
OD-5
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
WPO/133/2026
M/S. INTERCITY AGENCIES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.
VS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SMITA DAS DE
Date: 20th March, 2026.
Appearance:
Mr. Soumya Majumdar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ramesh Dhara, Adv.
Mr. Gourav Banerji, Adv.
...For the Petitioners
Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, Ld. A.A.G
Mr. Lal Mohan Basu, Adv.
...For the State
The Court:- 1. Affidavit of service filed be kept on record.
2. The petitioners have filed the present Writ application praying
for a declaration that the policy guideline bearing Notification 2059
dated 29.05.2025 issued by the Senior Deputy Secretary, Govt. of
West Bengal, Food and Supplies Department is inconsistent with
the provisions of the Targeted Public Distribution Systems
(Maintenance and Control Order) 2024 (hereinafter referred to as
the 2024 Control Order) and also being violative of Article 19 (1)(G),
300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further prays for
2
quashing of the said Notification. No. 2059 dated 29.05.2025, as
well as the consequential vacancy notification issued on dated
27.11.2025.
3. The petitioner in the instant case is a successful candidate who
has been appointed as an authorized distributor on 17 th October
2013. Pursuant to such appointment the concerned authority
issued a licence in favour of petitioner No. 1 company in prescribed
form under the West Bengal Public Distribution System
(Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
the 2013 Control Order) and the said licence is still valid and
subsisting.
4. The petitioner challenges the vacancy notifications all dated 4 th
September 2025 in respect of Sub-Area Haltu (D12), Haltu (D13),
Jadavpur (D14), Jadavpur (D15) respectively on the ground that
the petitioner No. 1 company has already been engaged as
Authorized Distributor / Wholesaler and is continuing its business
without any objection and has acquired a vested right.
5. It is further stated that the petitioner has been successfully
running the distributorship business, and the State Government
has already approved the engagement of the petitioner firm as an
authorized distributor to cater the fair price dealers in the areas
vacancy in question in order to comply with the National Food
Security Act, 2013 and to ensure door step delivery to all the FPS
3
Dealers covered under the Targeted Public Distribution System by
an Order dated 15.01.2016.
6. The petitioner contends that the Notification No. 2059 dated
29.05.2025 imposes quality standard that are ultra vires the
provisions of the Public Distribution System, quality control order
of 01.08.2024. It is further argued that the State Level notification
lacks the statutory authority to dilute or conflict with central
mandates concerning Food Security and Quality Distribution.
7. The Learned Counsel places reliance upon a judgment delivered
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of National
Consumers Cooperative Stores Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal
and Others in WPA 27401 of 2025 dated 05.12.2025 being
paragraphs 26 and 28 which are reproduced below:
"26. It appears that the order dated 29.05.2025 issues
"guidelines" for rationalization, though in the last paragraph
it has been stated that notice shall be issued after obtaining
approval of the State Government to invite applications.
28. It appears that an approval of the impugned order dated
29.05.2025 regarding "guidelines" may have been obtained,
but the said order (guidelines) does not bear either by the
order of the Governor nor does it note that the same has been
issued in supersession of all earlier orders in this respect
and as such in absence of such mandatory requirement, the
earlier orders including the order dated 13.04.1999 remain
in force till date and thus the petitioner prima facie has a
right to protect it's business/livelihood."
8. The petitioner further draws the attention of an order dated
21.01.2026 passed in WPA 773 of 2026 (Rajiv Tarafdar vs. State
of West Bengal and Others) by relying upon paragraph no. 4 of
the said order which is reproduced below:
4
"4.On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the urgency as made out and in view of the order
dated 05.12.2025 passed in WPA 27401 of 2025 by this
Court, it is directed that considering the relevant provisions
of law, judgments relied upon and the impugned order and
notification, it is evident that the petitioner has made out a
prima facie case of being prejudiced and thus pending
hearing of the writ application, the order dated 29.05.2025
issued by the Senior Deputy Secretary, Government of West
Bengal and vacancy notification no. 3706/FMR/13L-29 2025
dated 27.11.2025 issued by the Director of District
Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Government of West
Bengal be stated till 30the March, 2026 or until further order,
whoever is earlier."
9. It is contended by the petitioner that the guidelines do not
constitute a policy decision, since an essential feature of a policy
decision framed by the government is that it must bear the
approval of the cabinet in the manner prescribed under the rules of
business framed by the Government of west Bengal under Article
166 (3) of the Constitution of India. In absence of such approval,
the guidelines dated 29th May 2025 cannot be termed into a policy.
10. The petitioner submits that the definition of distributor as
mentioned in Clause (H) of the Notification dated 1 st August 2024
which is reproduced below :
"Distributor" means a person and includes an individual,
registered partnership firm, registered Co-operative Society,
Corporation or Company of the State Government, or a
Company having a valid license on or before commencement
of this order, Mahasangha of Self-help group working within
a district, in whose name a Distributor license for lifting,
storage and door step delivery of public distribution
commodities to the fair price shop tagged with it under the
Public Distribution System is issued under these orders:
Provided that the erstwhile Wholesaler licensed under the
West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance
& Control) Order, 2013, shall be re-designated as the
Distributor on and after commencement of this order and
5
shall be deemed to be engaged under the relevant provisions
of this order.
11. From the definition it is clear that anyone who has a valid
licence on or before the commencement of this order shall be
considered as a 'Distributor'.
12. In view of the promulgation of the control order 2024 the
petitioner acted as a distributor for the food department and
supplies, providing door step delivery of public distribution
commodities to all the tagged fair price shops, including the fair
price shops of Haltu and Jadavpur.
13. The petitioner submits that, as per the direction of the Food
and Supplies department the petitioner enhanced the godown
capacity of the storage of the food grains for supply of newly tagged
dealer (Haltu and Jadavpur).
14. The petitioner as per the direction of the department, is still
supplying food grains and to demonstrate such instances, has filed
a set of delivery challans which are kept on record.
15. It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, in a different matter concerning the petitioner being WPA
16170 of 2024 has been pleased to extend the interim order until
the disposal of the appeal being MAT No. 1543 of 2024 pending
before the Hon'ble Division Bench.
16. The Learned Additional Advocate General raises an objection to
of the petitioners locus standi to file the instant Writ Petition
6
praying inter alia, for declaration that the guideline, dated
29.05.2025 is inconsistent with the provisions of Targeted Public
Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2024.
17. The State respondent submits that the notification has been
issued to address localized distribution challenges and falls within
the administrative competence of the State to supplement the
regulatory framework for efficient service delivery.
18. The State respondent in this context relies upon the judgment
dated 14th February 2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in WPA 21905 of 2024 by drawing the attention of the
paragraphs 11 and 12 which are reproduced below:
"11. It appears that the petitioners were asked to deal with
the additional areas as a temporary measure and not by the
usual procedure for filling up of vacancies after giving public
notice. Such tagging of number of FPS dealers within such
areas cannot be said to have vested any right on the said
agencies. Tagging and de-tagging are part of the whole
process and are done in regular course. However, by the Act
of a temporary tagging of some FPS dealers, the petitioners
cannot claim a right to continue with the same for a longer
period of time or for anything to come.
12. The petitioners have claimed to have made significant
investments in their business. However, they have done so
knowing fully well that it was a temporary measure only by
which such extra areas were added to the petitioners for the
time being. They also must have earned profits out of such
investments. This would relate more to the petitioners
appetite for taking risk in business knowing fully well that
the additional arrangement was temporary in nature. This
cannot, by any stretch of imagination, amount to an
entitlement, far less a promissory estoppel on the part of the
State, to carry of such additional business for eternity."
19. It is submitted that the Notification dated is clarificatory in
nature and does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to
continue the supply of the food grains to the newly added areas.
20. The petitioner has been temporarily tagged in order to regulate
the distribution system to catering to the needs of the public at
large. The state government has the power under the statute to
regulate through "tagging and detagging" in the public interest.
21. It is submitted that detagging from the additional areas neither
infringes any right nor is discriminatory in nature. The petitioner
cannot continue supply of food grains in a monopolistic manner.
22. Upon perusal of the submission and the relevant statute this
Court is prima facie satisfied that no interference is warranted at
this stage.
23. That the State has the authority to implement distribution
policies, this does not ipso facto, overrides the foundational quality
standards set forth in order 01.08.2024. Any policy guidelines that
creates or directs conflicts with the central schemes is not
permissible under law.
24. In view of the above the operation of the Notification No. 2059
is hereby stayed till the end of June 2026 or until further order
whichever is earlier in so far as it, conflicts with the standards
prescribed in order 01.08.2024.
25. Let this matter appeared on 12th June 2026.
26. In the meantime the parties are directed to file and exchange
their respective affidavits.
27. Delivery challan (Transports Copy) submitted before this Court
be kept on record.
(SMITA DAS DE, J.)
JM
