Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 339 (CAL)

PRADIP KUMAR MAITY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2004-05-14

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA

body2004
BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) INSTEAD of disposing of the application for variation of the interim order I propose to dispose of the main writ application by treating the application for variation of the interim order as an affidavit-in-opposition to the main writ application by the private respondent. ( 2 ) IT appears from record that the father of the writ petitioner was a kerosene dealer in respect of the self-same area. On the death of his father, petitioner was given license on compassionate ground. During the subsistence of dealership of the father of the petitioner, license of the private respondent in respect of the adjoining area was cancelled due to his resignation on the ground of illness. On such resignation, the ration cards attached to the dealership of the private respondent were tagged to the dealership of the father of the writ petitioner. After the death of the father of the writ petitioner when a fresh license was granted in favour of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner inherited all those tagged ration cards attached to the dealership of the father of the writ petitioner. ( 3 ) IN the meantime after surrender of license by the private respondent, his wife applied for reissue of such license in her favour on compassionate ground, but such application was rejected. However, the private respondent after recovering from illness again applied for restoration of such license in his favour and the State-respondent restored the kerosene dealership in favour of the private respondent. After restoration of such license the State-respondent decided to delink the ration cards which were earlier tagged with the dealership of the father of the writ petitioner and subsequently to that of the petitioner, as a result the writ petitioner came up with this writ application. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether on restoration of kerosene dealership in favour of the private respondent, the original ration cards which were tagged with his dealership should again come back to his new dealership. ( 5 ) MR. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for determination in this writ application is whether on restoration of kerosene dealership in favour of the private respondent, the original ration cards which were tagged with his dealership should again come back to his new dealership. ( 5 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that his client's license had no connection with his father's dealership; in other words, he wanted to maintain that his client of his own obtained a new license and along with that license all the ration cards were given to him. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State-respondent it has been specifically asserted that on the death of the father of the writ petitioner that license was transferred in favour of the writ petitioner. Thus, I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Banerjee that his client did not get the dealership on compassionate ground on the death of his client's father. Even the writ petitioner could not disclose any material showing that on the death of the father of the writ petitioner a vacancy was declared and that he applied pursuant to such vacancy. Therefore, it is clear that the writ petitioner got the dealership on compassionate ground on the death of his father. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute that when the private respondent due to illness surrendered his license, all the ration cards attached to his dealership were tagged with the dealership of the father of the writ petitioner and after hi's death to the writ petitioner. This is nobody's case that those tagged ration cards fall within the area of the dealership of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the moment the State-respondent has decided to restore the dealership of the private respondent, all those ration cards which were delinked from his dealership and tagged with the dealership of the writ petitioner should again come back to the private respondent's dealership. Thus, the State-respondent did not commit any illegality in passing necessary order of detagging those ration cards from the dealership of the writ petitioner and attaching those to that of the private respondent. ( 8 ) AT this stage, Mr. Thus, the State-respondent did not commit any illegality in passing necessary order of detagging those ration cards from the dealership of the writ petitioner and attaching those to that of the private respondent. ( 8 ) AT this stage, Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner strenuously contended that once dealership of the private respondent was cancelled, the state-respondent could not restore the same in his favour. ( 9 ) I am afraid, the writ petitioner being not a contender for that vacancy cannot dispute grant of restoration of dealership in favour of the private respondent. Moreover, after surrender of license by the private respondent due to illness there was no fresh vacancy, and, as such, there was no bar in restoring the said dealership in favour of the private respondent when he came round. ( 10 ) I, thus, find that there is no merit in this writ application. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, passed earlier, shall stand vacated. The State- respondent is directed to give effect to the order impugned immediately. ( 11 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let xerox-certified copy of this order be given to the parties by Tuesday next if applied for. Writ application dismissed. Interim order stands vacated.