JUDGMENT :- Tapen Sen, J. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners pray for an order Commanding upon the Respondents to withdraw the Memo dated 21.2.2011 being Memo No. 1040-FS issued by the Respondent No. 7 (Joint Secretary, Department of Food and Supplies, Govt. of West Bengal) (Annexure-P/17) whereby and whereunder he informed the Director, District, Distribution, Procurement and Supplies that as per the reasoned decision of the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Food, the Department of Food & Supplies, Govt. of West Bengal was approving the appointment of the Respondent No. 12 ( M/s. Mahestala Agro Foods Private Ltd.) as a regular MR Distributor at Pathar Pratima Block (Ram Ganga ) District- South 24-Pgs. 2. The Petitioners have further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents to cancel the said selection of the Respondent No. 12 and to appoint the Petitioners in their place after Quashing the said impugned Memo No. 1040-FS dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure-P/17). 3. A Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners wherein they have stated that after filing of the Writ Petition, the Joint Secretary (Respondent No. 7) supplied a copy of an Order which was received by them on 17.2.2011 by which the objection filed by the Petitioners dated 1.12.2010 was rejected. According to the Petitioners, this Order is self contradictory, non-speaking and cryptic and in any event, the same cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Commissioner of Food-cum-Principal Secretary came to an erroneous and unreasonable conclusion for purposes of selecting the Respondent No. 12. 4. According to the Petitioners, a Notification dated 22.7.2010 was published vide Annexure-P/1 declaring a fresh vacancy for MR Distributorship at Ram Ganga. The Petitioner No. 1 being a partnership firm and having suitable and spacious godown in the centre of Ram Ganga with a huge parking space, which was being used as an MR Distributorship Godown for the last 14 years and having sound financial capability, experience and eligibility, duly applied in the prescribed form and within time enclosing therewith all necessary documents and papers. 5. According to the further case of the Petitioners, 6 (six) other applicants including the Respondent No. 12 applied pursuant to the said publication of vacancy. Thereafter, enquiry etc. was conducted and an enquiry Report (Annexure-P/4) was prepared by the Sub-divisional Controller (F & S), Kakdwip. 6. 5. According to the further case of the Petitioners, 6 (six) other applicants including the Respondent No. 12 applied pursuant to the said publication of vacancy. Thereafter, enquiry etc. was conducted and an enquiry Report (Annexure-P/4) was prepared by the Sub-divisional Controller (F & S), Kakdwip. 6. It is stated that during the course of enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Controller had the occasion to inspect two Godowns of the Petitioners being Godown Nos. 1 &2. The Petitioners have stated that Godown No. 1 was being used as an MR Distributorship Godown of Ramganga since the last 14 years. They have further stated that initially the said Godown was being used by one Nirmal Koyal an MR Distributor of Poler Hat, P.S. Kulpi but after his resignation/surrender, the said Godown No. 1 was being used as the MR Distributorship Godown of Bijoy Kumar Bhakat, Kakdwip since 2007 and this Godown was a proposed Godown of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 7. The Petitioners have further stated that on account of termination of MR Distributorship of Nirmal Koyal, all the MR Dealers of Ramganga were tagged with the MR Distributorship of Bijoy Kumar Bhakat and since 1995, the entire rationed articles were being distributed from the said proposed Godown No. 1. 8. The Petitioners have stated that subsequently, they received a Notice dated 9.11.2010 by which they were asked to remain present at the site of their proposed Godowns on 11.11.2010. They presented themselves and produced all documents and were expecting to be appointed when they came to learn that the Director, DDP & S (Respondent No. 3) had rejected the candidature of the Petitioner No. 1 on the ground of unsuitability of storage place and had recommended the Respondent No. 12. According to the Petitioners, the recommendation itself would show that the proposed Godown of the Respondent No. 12 was situated on “Sali” land but it was stated that if mandatory provision for conversion of certificate is relaxed, the Respondent No. 12 may be appointed against the vacancy. 9. According to the further case of the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 12 failed to produce any conversion certificate in respect of the land in question. 9. According to the further case of the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 12 failed to produce any conversion certificate in respect of the land in question. Challenging the enquiry report and the recommendation dated 23.11.2010, the Petitioners filed W.P. No. 1452 of 2010 and by an Order dated 21.11.2010, another Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court disposed of the Writ Petition vide Annexure-P/9 giving liberty to the Petitioner to file an objection before the Commissioner of Food. It was observed that if such an objection was filed, the Commissioner of Food would give an opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned and pass a reasoned decision. 10. Thereafter an objection was filed on 1.12.2010 taking the grounds mentioned in paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition. The Petitioners have further stated that to their utter shock and surprise, they came to learn that the Joint Secretary F & S had sent a communication dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure- P/17) informing that the Government had approved the appointment of the Respondent No. 12 as an MR Distributor. In paragraph 27, they have stated that the reasoned decision as stated in the Memo dated 21.2.2011 has not been intimated to the Petitioners and that they are not aware of the contents of the said decision. 11. In the Supplementary Affidavit, the Petitioners have brought on record the reasoned Order. The said reasoned Order shows the following considerations that have weighed with the authority while taking the decision. The relevant considerations with regard to the Petitioners and the Respondent No. 12 are as follows:- Petitioners Respondent No. 12 1. Sundarban Supply centre (Petitioner No. 1) has shown three Godowns having 25, 212 cft. In aggregate. 2. They produced rent receipts 1. Mahestala Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 12) showed one Godown having storage capacity of 55,756 cft. Which was much more but from the enquiry it is revealed that they have no possessional right over one Godown since it is in possession of one Bijoy Kumar Bhakat , an existing MR Distributor. 3. One of the other two Godowns is situated on a river embankment below embankment level and both Godowns do not have a total combined capacity of 20,000 cft. Which is the minimum requirement and therefore, they do not come within the zone of consideration, than the minimum requirement of 20,000 cft. 2. 3. One of the other two Godowns is situated on a river embankment below embankment level and both Godowns do not have a total combined capacity of 20,000 cft. Which is the minimum requirement and therefore, they do not come within the zone of consideration, than the minimum requirement of 20,000 cft. 2. They produced rent receipt showing possessional right and the vacant Godown was in their possession. 3. Mahestala had shown the highest amount in their Bank Account being Rs. 1,41,10,020/- which was much more than the required minimum requirement of finance of Rs. 20,00,000/-. 12. So far as the point relating to “Sali” land is concerned, the authority observed that since Mahestala Agro Foods had possessed rent receipts and had shown that the Godown was in their possession and since they were mere tenants of the said Godown which was rented by them, they had no scope to produce any document regarding the character of the land. Moreover, the conversion certificate was not a requisite criterion as per the Notification of vacancy and therefore such a requirement could not be insisted upon. 13. This Court is of the view that the decision of the Commissioner (Food) - cum-Principal Secretary cannot be said to be erroneous because firstly the objection relating to the character of the land had rightly been rejected inasmuch as all that was required was “Xerox copy of the document in respect of possessional right over the proposed place of business (Parcha/Rent Receipt)”. That apart, the Notification of vacancy clearly also required that financial solvency certificate should not be less than Rs. 20 lakhs. The Respondent No. 12 admittedly showed a sum of Rs. 1,41,10,020/- which was much more than Rs. 20,00,000/-. Additionally the requisite Godown capacity was not less than 20,000 cft. The Petitioner No. 1 showed three Godowns having an aggregate of 25, 212 cft. One of the godowns did not even meet the requirement of the criteria “possessional right” whereas out of the other two Godowns, one was situated below embankment level and the other two, taken together, did not even have a combined capacity of 20,000 cft. Mahestala Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 12), on the other hand, showed one Godown not only with possessional documents but also having storage capacity of 55, 756 cft. 14. Mahestala Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 12), on the other hand, showed one Godown not only with possessional documents but also having storage capacity of 55, 756 cft. 14. This court, after considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances and after having perused the comparative qualifications of the Petitioner vis-a-vis the Respondent No. 12, is clearly of the opinion that the Respondent No. 12 scored higher than the Petitioner and therefore, does not find any fault or irregularity with the decision of the Commissioner (Food)-cum-Principal Secretary. As a result, the communication made by the Joint Secretary vide Annexure-P/17 on 21.2.2011 cannot be said to be a communication that requires to be interfered with by this Court. 15. For the reasons given above, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the impugned decisions. The Writ Petition therefore does not qualify for intervention. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.