Tripura High Court
Sri Narayan Baidya vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) NO.563 OF 2023
Sri Narayan Baidya
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and ors.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. D. Paul, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 04/04/2024
Whether fit for reporting : YES/NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
Heard Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing
for the State-respondents.
2. This present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
seeking the following reliefs:-
"i. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby
quashing and cancelling the Memo, dated 01.06.2023, issued by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate (Licensing Authority), Belonia, South Tripura.
ii. Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the
nature of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby
quashing and cancelling the Appointment Order, dated 28.06.2023, issued
by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate (Licensing Authority), Belonia, South
Tripura.
Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why Writ in the nature
of mandamus and/or Order/direction shall not be issued whereby Directing
the Respondents to Restore the Dealership of Laxmipur F.P. Shop in favour
of the Petitioner.
iv. Make the rules absolute.
V. Call for records pertaining to the instant Writ Petition
vi. Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit
and proper."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that since 1998 he has
been conducting the business of civil supplies and ration shop at
Laxmipur F.P. shop, Belonia, South Tripura District. Thereafter on
20.03.2023, in duress, the petitioner addressed a letter to the SDM
Belonia, the licensing authority and submitted before him that he
would like to surrender the license and, accordingly, to withdraw
from the business. The official respondent/licensing authority vide
memorandum dated 01.06.2023 indicated that the application made
by the petitioner seeking surrender has been accepted and till
further arrangement is made, the petitioner shall continue.
4. Thereafter, on 28.06.2023, the official respondent
appointed unofficial respondent No.5 and indicated unofficial
respondent No.5 to give his willingness and comply with the
formalities not later than 7th June 2023. In the meanwhile, the
petitioner was afraid to approach the concerned police
official/authorities and make a complaint, the petitioner only
approached the official respondent and filed an application dated
09.06.2022 seeking withdrawal of his earlier surrender letter and
prayed to permit him to carry on the business since the license has
not been granted to any other person.
5. Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for
the respondents upon the strength of their counter affidavit
contends before this Court that the SDM has accepted the surrender
letter which has been given by the petitioner after personally
verifying with him in his office and has accepted such resignation.
Thereafter, the official respondent has taken steps to appoint
another person and in the meanwhile not to cause any hindrance to
the civilians, the petitioner was permitted to proceed with the
supplies. Learned Addl G.A. further contented that the petitioner
has sufficient properties as well as a grocery business and is not a
need-based person.
6. Mr. D. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits before this Court that the official respondent
allowed the petitioner to conduct the business after accepting the
resignation also. Even as per the appointment of the unofficial
respondent No.5 that not later than 7th June 2023, the unofficial
respondent had only gave his willingness after the cut-off date.
Stating thus, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner should be
allowed to continue with the F.P. Shop.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Admittedly, upon the surrender application made by
the petitioner, the official respondent accepted the same after
enquiring with him and till an alternative arrangement was made for
the appointment of a fresh person, the petitioner was allowed to
carry on the supplies keeping in view the public utility. Even before
any appointment is made, the petitioner has filed his application
seeking withdrawal of his business. Though the petitioner has
pleaded that he surrendered in duress, the petitioner has not
ventilated his grievance in the office of the official respondent and
also has not taken any legal recourse to say that he was in duress.
So, it is not open for the petitioner to blow hot and cold.
9. Hence in terms of the above discussion this Court is
of the opinion that this present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
and the same is ordered.
10. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.04.06
SINGHA 13:02:47 +05'30'
