JUDGMENT : In this writ petition the petitioner has made out a case that her deceased husband was a big dealer of Kerosene oil. Her husband died on 27th August, 2014 and on 1st September, 2014 the petitioner being the widow made an application for transfer of her name in place and stead of her husband, the deceased big dealer licensee. Such prayer being not considered by the concerned authorities, the petitioner moved a writ petition before this Court. Lastly, an order was passed on 30th March, 2016 in WP 5037(W) of 2016 by this Hon’ble Court whereby the Principal Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal was directed to take a decision in respect of the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground for S. K. Oil Dealership on the basis of recommendation sent by the District Controller (Food & Supplies) on 24th February, 2016. 2. In pursuance of such direction passed in the above writ petition, the authorities considered the matter and passed a reasoned order dated 23rd August, 2016 which was communicated to the petitioner under their memo dated 23rd August, 2016 and those orders are impugned in this writ petition. In the said reasoned order it has been held that there is a bar for appointment as big dealer on compassionate ground as per government order vide Memo No. FS/Sectt/Sup./4D-4/94 dated 9th May, 1996. 3. Mr. Basu appearing for the petitioner submits that the reasoning given by the authorities is absolutely wrong inasmuch as such government order dated 9th May, 1996 has already been set aside by an order dated 27th April, 2015 passed in W.P. No. 8737(W) of 2015 (Bidhan Saha Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors). The said reasoned order has also recorded that the petitioner has filed an undertaking before the authorities for appointment of retail dealership which is seriously disputed by Mr. Basu and he submits that there was no such undertaking given by his client. However, in support of such averment, I do not find any averment in the writ petition. That being so, matter requires further investigation upon affidavit to be filed by the parties. 4. Respondents are given liberty to file affidavit in opposition within a period of three weeks after vacation. Reply thereto by two weeks thereafter. Let this matter be listed for hearing as ‘contested application’ five weeks after reopening. 5. That being so, matter requires further investigation upon affidavit to be filed by the parties. 4. Respondents are given liberty to file affidavit in opposition within a period of three weeks after vacation. Reply thereto by two weeks thereafter. Let this matter be listed for hearing as ‘contested application’ five weeks after reopening. 5. However, since it is more or less admitted position that the consideration so made by the order dated 23rd August, 2016 is in pursuance of the order passed by this Hon’ble court on 30th March, 2016 in WP 5037(W) of 2016 and the authorities were directed to take a decision for the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground for S.K. Oil Dealership on the basis of the recommendation earlier sent on 24th February, 2016, the apprehension of the petitioner that in the event the impugned order dated 23rd August, 2016 is given effect to the petitioner’s prayer as well as order passed by this Court will be rendered infructuous. 6. In view of the matter, it would be just and proper to pass an interim order in terms of prayers (f) and (g) of the writ petition. Such interim order will continue for a period of six weeks after the reopening or until further order, whichever is earlier. 7. The petitioner is given liberty to make a prayer for extension of this order without making a fresh application. The respondents are also given liberty to make a prayer for modification of this order. 8. After the time frame as mentioned, the petitioner is given liberty to mention for inclusion in the list. 9. It is so recorded that the writ petition has already been served in Court today to Mr. Moloy Roy.