JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners have challenged the Memo No. 199A/DCF&S/N24PGS/2021 dt. 28.01.2021 wherein the application of the petitioners for appointment as M.R. Distributor against the vacancy in Minakhan Block under Basirhat Sub-Division, District of North 24 Parganas is rejected. 2. The District Controller (F & S), North 24 Parganas had published a notice in the Official Gazette on 11.07.2018 inviting the applications for filling up the vacancy of M.R. Distributorship at Minakhan Block under Basirhat Sub-Division in the District of North 24 Parganas in prescribed Form “G” with requisite documents and application fee. 3. The petitioner being eligible for the said M.R. Distributorship had submitted an application in the prescribed form enclosing requisite documents along with the fee has required under law. 4. By a Gazette Notification dt. 09.01.2019, the earlier vacancy notice dt. 11.07.2018 notified in the Official Gazette on 23.07.2018 was superseded and applications were invited for filling up the vacancy of distributorship in terms of Clause 26 (i) of 2013, Order in Minakhan, under Minakhan Block in the District of North 24 Parganas. By a proviso, in the said Notification dt. 09.01.2019 it is stated that, “Please note that those applicants, who have applied earlier on the basis of principal notification may opt to consider his/her/their application under this notification on submission of an undertaking to the DCF&S, North 24 Parganas within last date of submission of application”. 5. The petitioner in terms of first proviso of the notification dt. 09.01.2019 made representation to the respondents opting for consideration of their applications. On receipt of the request made by the petitioner, the application of the petitioner was processed and have found that the petitioners have fulfilled the eligibility criteria and have submitted requisite documents and accordingly, the same was forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Controller for conducting enquiry and the Sub-Divisional Controller (F & S) had accordingly conducted spot enquiry. 6. Inspite of the enquiry and spot inspection, the respondents have not taken any decision for appointment of distributorship against the vacancy in question and accordingly, the petitioner had preferred a writ application before this Court being W.P. No. 15260 (W) of 2019 with the prayer for a direction upon the authorities to complete the selection process with respect of the vacancy in question. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had disposed of the writ application by directing the concern authority to expedite and conclude the process within a period of two (2) months. 7. In the month of September, 2019, the District Controller (F & S) had issued a notice by cancelling the vacancy in question and refunded the application fee to the petitioner. On 22.11.2019 the Principal Secretary had passed an order which was communicated to the petitioners on 27.12.2019 informing that State had taken a policy decision to cancel all vacancy notifications and to notify these vacancies de-novo after adopting revised norms and guidelines. Being aggrieved with the order of cancellation, the petitioner had preferred a writ application before this Court being WPO No. 359 of 2020. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court along with WPO No. 359 of 2020 on 18.12.2020. 8. After the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the respondent authorities have passed the impugned order on 28.01.2021 which was communicated to the petitioners on 08.02.2021. The reasons for rejection are as follows:- (i) The applicant i.e. M/s Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. is a company. However, applications were invited only from Self Help Groups/Registered Co-operative Societies/Semi Government Bodies/ Individuals/ Group of Individuals as an entity. Thus, the applicant is found not eligible to apply for MR Distributorship vacancy against the extant notification. (ii) As per application submitted, M/s Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has its registered office at 24/1, Bethune Row, Kolkata – 700006. No papers have been submitted to prove the existence of any office of M/s Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in North 24 Parganas district. Further, Mr Tamal Kundu, Director & Authorized Signatory of M/s Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has submitted copy of his AADHAAR card (bearing AADHAAR No. 6100 7194 6886) in which his address is recorded as 40/A, W.C Banerjee Street, Kolkata – 700006. This violates the eligibility criteria mentioned at Sl. No. 2 that “the applicant (in the case of individual or group of individuals) should be permanent residents) of North 24 Parganas district.” (iii) Total credit balance of Rs. 3,47,03,271/- is shown as on date 10/08/2018 (i.e. ten days prior to date of application) and credit balance of Rs. 4,07,33,000/- between 19/07/2017 to 21/09/2017 (i.e. one year prior to date of application). 3,47,03,271/- is shown as on date 10/08/2018 (i.e. ten days prior to date of application) and credit balance of Rs. 4,07,33,000/- between 19/07/2017 to 21/09/2017 (i.e. one year prior to date of application). However, no papers have been submitted by the applicant to prove the credit balance with him as on 20/09/2017 i.e. the date of application. This violates the eligibility criteria mentioned at Sl. No. 5 that “the applicant must be financially solvent so as to run the distributorship business successfully having bank balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh only) as working capital as reflected on the day of application and one year preceding the date of application.” (iv) No adequate covered space adjacent to the godown for use as office was found during inspection. This violates the eligibility criteria mentioned at Sl. No. 6 that “the applicant should possess a suitable godown … … … having the size to accommodate at least 1000 MT of foodgrain … … … along with an adequate covered space adjacent to the godown to be used for office purpose … … …” 9. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandyopadhyay, Ld. Sr. Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that on receipt of the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment of M.R. Distributorship against the vacancy in terms of the Notification dt. 11.07.2018, the office of the respondent authorities satisfied with the statement made in the statutory Form “G” and finding the petitioner is eligible to participate against the vacancy, the application of the petitioner was forwarded to the concern authorities for enquiry and accordingly, the enquiry was conducted and the godown was also inspected and at the time of enquiry and inspection of godown it was found that the petitioner has fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in Form “G”. The Ld. Sr. Counsel further contended that as the authorities have not taken the decision on the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment of M.R. Distributorship, the petitioner had approached this Court and this Court has directed the Principal Secretary who is the highest authority to process for appointment of Distributorship against the vacancy and at that point of time also the respondent authorities have not raised any objection with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner and the authorities have accepted the order passed by this Court. 10. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the reason no. 10. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the reason no. 1 of the impugned order that the petitioner is a company and as such not eligible to apply for distributorship against the notification as applications were invited only from Self Help Groups/Registered Co-operative Societies/Semi-Government Bodies/Individuals/Group of Individuals as an entity is against the settled position of law. On the earlier occasion, the respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the company on the similar ground and the petitioner has challenged the order before this Court and the matter went up to the Hon’ble Division Bench in an earlier proceeding, the Hon’ble Division bench of this Court held that, "It is hence in comprehensible that tender specifications should be designed in a manner construing a group of individual as an entity has limited to eliminating the Appellants/the Company. It is equally in comprehensible that the construction of expression a group of individuals as an entity has been argued as limited to natural persons whereas the legal groundnorms persuades this Court to hold otherwise by purposively interpreting the expression to include within its scope, ambit and meaning juristic entities constituted by a group of individuals. To the mind of this Court such a condition in the tender status out to be ex facie discriminatory and since such a tender condition fails to provide a level plying field, the exclusion of the Appellants/Company is liable to be struck down.” 11. The Ld. Counsel relying upon the said judgment submitted that ignoring the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench again the respondent authorities have rejected the application of the petitioner on the same ground. 12. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that in terms of Clause 23 of the statutory application Form “G” an applicant of distributorship must note that he/she shall have to abide by the conditions in case he/she is offered a license. It would clear that the petitioners have to set up an office attached to the proposed godown after grant of license. 13. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the petitioners had the bank balance of more than Rs. 50,00,000/- on 20.08.2018. The documents for making application were prepared and/or obtained prior to the date of making application and accordingly, the document with regard to financial solvency for making such application was obtained on 10.08.2018. 14. Ld. 13. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the petitioners had the bank balance of more than Rs. 50,00,000/- on 20.08.2018. The documents for making application were prepared and/or obtained prior to the date of making application and accordingly, the document with regard to financial solvency for making such application was obtained on 10.08.2018. 14. Ld. Senior Counsel further argued that in Form “G” it is categorically mentioned that the petitioners have office space of 210.25 Sq. ft. adjacent to the godown and as per condition no. 6 of Clause 23 of Form “G” stipulates that the applicant for distributorship shall have to abide by the terms and conditions in case he is offered license. 15. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the authorities have passed the impugned order by considering the irrelevant fact, which has no nexus of appointment of distributor against the vacancy. 16. Per contra, Mr. Susovan Sengupta, Ld. Counsel representing the respondent submits that the petitioner is a Private Limited Company whereas the applications were invited only from Self Help Groups/Registered Co-operative Societies/ Semi-Government Bodies/Individuals/Group of Individuals as an entity and neither the Company has any address nor any of the directors has the permanent residential address in the district. 17. The Counsel for the respondent further submits that no papers have been submitted to prove the existence of any company in North 24 Parganas District and the address of Director and authorized Signatory is of Kolkata whereas the applicant should be permanent resident of North 24 Parganas. 18. It is further submitted that the credit balance was shown as on 10.08.2018 i.e. 10 days prior to the date of application and no papers have been submitted to prove the credit balance as on 20.08.2018. 19. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent further submits that no adequate covered space adjacent to godown for use as office was found during inspection. It is further submitted that the petitioners have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for appointment of distributorship. 20. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment reported in (2011) 5 SCC 103 (Glodyne Technoserve Limited Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and the judgment reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756 (Jai Narain Parasrampuria & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf & Ors.). 21. Considered the rival submissions of the parties, documents available on record and the judgment relied by the parties. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.) and the judgment reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756 (Jai Narain Parasrampuria & Ors. Vs. Pushpa Devi Saraf & Ors.). 21. Considered the rival submissions of the parties, documents available on record and the judgment relied by the parties. The respondents have rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of M.R. Distributorship by assigning four reasons. 22. As regard the 1st reason, in an earlier proceeding the petitioner has challenged the rejection order of the respondents wherein the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the similar ground and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 562 of 2021 (M/s. Sonai Food Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) in paragraph 8 held that, "It is hence in comprehensible that tender specifications should be designed in a manner construing a group of individual as an entity has limited to eliminating the Appellants/the Company. It is equally in comprehensible that the construction of expression a group of individuals as an entity has been argued as limited to natural persons whereas the legal ground norms persuades this Court to hold otherwise by purposively interpreting the expression to include within its scope, ambit and meaning juristic entities constituted by a group of individuals. To the mind of this Court such a condition in the tender status out to be ex facie discriminatory and since such a tender condition fails to provide a level plying field, the exclusion of the Appellants/Company is liable to be struck down.” In view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench the ground no. 1 of the rejection dt. 29.01.2021 is not sustainable under law. 23. As regard the 2nd reason for rejection the petitioner while submitting an application under Form G, it is mentioned as follows : “M/s Sonai Food Marketing Private Limited, having registered office at 24/1, Bethune Row, Kolkata-700006.” 24. The petitioners have mentioned the address of their registered office as the company has applied for the said distributorship. In clause 26 (iii) of 2013 Order it is categorically mentioned that “If the applicant be individual(s), he/she/they should be permanant resident of concern District but in the instant case the company has applied for the said distributorship and thus the 2nd reason for rejection is not sustainable. 25. In clause 26 (iii) of 2013 Order it is categorically mentioned that “If the applicant be individual(s), he/she/they should be permanant resident of concern District but in the instant case the company has applied for the said distributorship and thus the 2nd reason for rejection is not sustainable. 25. As regard to the 3rd reason the petitioners in their Form G Clause 16 (i), (ii) and (iii) mentioned as follows : “16. i) Amount of money which can be invested in the business of dealership/distributorship as capital : 11000000/- (One Crore Ten Lakh Only (ii) Name of the Bank and its branch in which account is maintained : Bandhan Bank Ld., Bidhan Sarani Branch, Kolkkata-700006 (iii) Credit Balance as on the date of application : 49703271/- (Rupees Four Crore Ninety Seven Lakh Three Thousand Two Hundred Seventy one), (Cash-34703271/- and 9 TD of Rs.- 15000000/- in Principal)” 26. In support of the contention the petitioners have enclosed bank statements which proves that the petitioners were having bank balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- and thus the 3rd reason for rejection is not sustainable. 27. As regard 4th reason for rejection, the petitioners have mentioned the details of godown in clause 11,12 and 13 of Form G reads as follows : “11. Particulars of the godown- with Plot No., Khatian No., Name of Mouza, Holding No., Road/Lane, Boundary etc (copy of the sanctioned plan to be attached): L.R. Dag No. 1068, L.R. Khatian No. 1905, J.L. No. 31 Mouza-Minakhan, Block-Minakhan, P.S.- Minakhan, District-North 24 Pgs. East: By Plot R.S. Dag No. 1067 West: By portion L.R. Dag No. 1068 North: By Basanti Road South By Plot L.R. Dag No. 1067 (Attested Photocopy of sanctioned plan attached). 12. Size Measurement of the godown with Length, Breadth, Height and Area in Sq.ft. Length of the frontage on the street/lane mentioned at serial no. 11. Nature of possession, Viz. Rental or Ownership: L-117’8”, b-58’8”, H-18 ft., Area-6903 sqft. Frontage: 117 ft. & office space of 210.25 sqft. Nature of Possession: Rental 13. Storage Capacity of the godown in Qtls/MT : 1072 MT” 12. Size Measurement of the godown with Length, Breadth, Height and Area in Sq.ft. Length of the frontage on the street/lane mentioned at serial no. 11. Nature of possession, Viz. Rental or Ownership: L-117’8”, b-58’8”, H-18 ft., Area-6903 sqft. Frontage: 117 ft. & office space of 210.25 sqft. Nature of Possession: Rental 13. Size Measurement of the godown with Length, Breadth, Height and Area in Sq.ft. Length of the frontage on the street/lane mentioned at serial no. 11. Nature of possession, Viz. Rental or Ownership: L-117’8”, b-58’8”, H-18 ft., Area-6903 sqft. Frontage: 117 ft. & office space of 210.25 sqft. Nature of Possession: Rental 13. Storage Capacity of the godown in Qtls/MT : 1072 MT” 28. In terms of the said details the respondents have inspected the said godown and have not raised any objection. As per Clause 23 of Form “G” it is mentioned that “ An applicant for distributorship must note that he/she shall have to abide by the following terms and conditions in case he/she is offered a license” and thus the said clause is applicable after grant of license and thus the reasons assigned by the respondents is not sustainable under law. 29. The Counsel for the respondents had relied upon the judgment reported in (2006) 7 SCC 756 para 48, 49 & 50 which read as follows:- “48. In a case of this nature, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, even the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil would be applicable. 49. We would, in this regard, notice some precedents operating in the field. 50. In Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar [ (2003) 6 SCC 1 ], this Court opined: "25. It is now well settled that the corporate veil can in certain situations be pierced or lifted. The principle behind the doctrine is a changing concept and it is expanding its horizon as was held in State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co. The ratio of the said decision clearly suggests that whenever a corporate entity is abused for an unjust and inequitable purpose, the court would not hesitate to lift the veil and look into the realities so as to identify the persons who are guilty and liable therefor." 30. The judgment relied upon the Counsel for the respondent is not applicable in the instant case, as the facts of the instant case is totally different from the facts of the case relied by the Counsel for the respondent. The point raised by the respondents have been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The point raised by the respondents have been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench and the same was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The judgment relied by the respondent reported in (2011) 5 SCC 103 para 46 which reads as follows:- “46. The above provision obliges a tenderer to produce along with the bid document a copy of the quality certificate which is valid and active on the date of submission of the bid and it does not enable a bidder to withhold the copy of such quality certificate. Where the quality certificate will be expiring shortly and is due for renewal, the bidder is also obliged to produce the renewed certificate at the time of signing of the contract. The appellant claimed to have a valid and active ISO 9001:2000 certificate at the time of submission of the bid, but did not produce a copy of the said certificate along with the bid document.” 31. In the instant case, though the petitioner has not enclosed the document with the application but subsequently the documents were accepted by the authorities and the respondents have acted upon the documents submitted by the petitioner by inspecting the land and godown of the petitioner without any objection and as such the judgment relied by the respondent is not applicable in the instant case. 32. In view of the above, this Court is of the view the impugned order passed by the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Murshidabad dt. 29.01.2021 is not sustainable under law and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 33. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Distributorship in Minakhan, under Minakhan Block in the District of North 24 Parganas in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 34. WPA 5269 of 2021 is thus allowed. 35. Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the Judgment and Order placed on the official website of the Court. 36. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.