JUDGMENT Joymalya Bagchi, J. Shib Nath Dey was a M. R. Dealer at Payradanga under Ranaghat-I Block, District Nadia. He died on 22nd November, 2006. Thereafter the petitioner no. 2 made an application for transfer of dealership but she failed to submit no objection certificate from other legal heirs. On 7th May, 2010 she made a prayer to the respondent authorities that a permanent dealer be appointed in respect of the fair price shop. On 4th March, 2014 a vacancy notice was declared in respect of the said M.R. Dealership. In the meantime, the petitioner no. 1 made a representation on 8th July, 2011 to be appointed as a dealer. By an order dated 2nd April, 2014 in W.P. 10100(W) of 2014, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondent no.3 to dispose of the matter by passing a reasoned order thereon. By order dated 22nd May, 2014, the respondent no. 3 rejected the prayer for appointing petitioner no. 1 as a dealer on compassionate ground. Such order has been assailed. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasons given in the impugned order are completely irrelevant as no objection certificate had been furnished by all family members in favour of the petitioner no. 1. Mr. Sengupta, learned advocate appearing for the State submits that the order need not be interfered into for other reasons inasmuch as the petitioner no. 1 does not qualify for appointment on compassionate ground under Control Order of 2013 (Order of 2013) as he is not a family member. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, I find that the petitioner no. 1 is the brother of the licencee of Shib Nath Dey. Section 2(m) of the Order defines family members. “2(m) – “Family members” means spouse, dependent parents, dependent sons and daughters for the purpose of considering engagement as Dealers/Distributors on compassionate ground.” In view of the aforesaid definition, the petitioner no. 1 as the brother of the licencee is not entitled to maintain an application for appointment as a dealer on compassionate ground under the new Control Order. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned decision of respondent no. 3 herein. Such order will however, not prevent the petitioner no. 1 as the brother of the licencee is not entitled to maintain an application for appointment as a dealer on compassionate ground under the new Control Order. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not wish to interfere with the impugned decision of respondent no. 3 herein. Such order will however, not prevent the petitioner no. 2 or any other family member of the aforesaid licencee to make application for appointment as dealer on compassionate ground within fortnight from date. In the event such application is made within the aforesaid time frame, the same shall be considered and a decision be taken thereon by the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law. If the petitioner no. 2 or any other family member of the deceased licensee fails to make such application before respondent no. 3 within the aforesaid time frame the respondents shall be free to proceed with the selection process which has been initiated pursuant to the vacancy notice issued by them. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.