Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2026 DIGILAW 178 (SC)

Rejia Parvin v. State Of West Bengal

2026-02-12

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.MAHADEVAN

body2026
ORDER Heard Mr. Huzefa Aziz Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Kunal Mimani, learned counsel for the State of West Bengal and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.6. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant challenging the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 23.12.2024 in MAT No. 2203 of 2024, impugned before us, read with order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the review petition filed by the appellant before the Calcutta High Court being RVW No. 22 of 2025, by which, the Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealership in question has been allotted in favour of the Respondent No. 6 (Dipak Kumar Singha). 4. The brief history of the case is that the appellant and the respondent no. 6 (herein) along with other people had applied for grant of licence to run a public FPS dealership near Patnour, F.P. School, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal. The vacancy regarding new FPS dealership was notified by the Sub-Divisional Controller (Food & Supplies) on 16.11.2022 and the same was published in the “Times of India”, “The Bartaman” and “The Uttarer Saradin” on 10.01.2023. Both the appellant and the Respondent No. 6, submitted their applications within time i.e., within 21 days from the date of the publication of the advertisement in the newspapers. 5. On 16.03.2023, an inspection was held and an inquiry report was submitted. In the said inquiry report, the appellant was granted 83 marks, whereas the respondent no.6 was given 71 marks and in the recommendations column it was communicated that his case was not being recommended as the said applicant has not maintained plinth height and floor of the godown was almost three feet below the road level. However, on the basis of the second inspection/re-inquiry, which was conducted on 07.06.2023 only restricting to Respondent No. 6, he was found suitable and was recommended on the following grounds : “…. As such the proposed godown and sales counter are at a lower level to the road. However, on talking to local people it seems that there is no waster logging at the site. Moreover, there are couple of houses below the site whose also informed that they did not experience any water logging. Hence, application may be recommended.” 6. As such the proposed godown and sales counter are at a lower level to the road. However, on talking to local people it seems that there is no waster logging at the site. Moreover, there are couple of houses below the site whose also informed that they did not experience any water logging. Hence, application may be recommended.” 6. The appellant on 19.09.2023, objected to the recommendations of the report of re-inquiry conducted on 07.06.2023. However, the respondent no. 6 was issued offer letter on 22.09.2023. This prompted the appellant to file a Writ Petition before the High Court, being WPA No. 23922 of 2023, which, vide order dated 27.11.2024 was allowed by the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court. However, on filing of the appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court vide Order dated 23.12.2024 (impugned herein), reversed the order of the Single Bench and approved the grant of FPS dealership in favour of the respondent no. 6. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a review application being RVW No. 22/2025, before the Calcutta High Court, which was dismissed vide Order dated 19.02.2025. 7. The appellant, having moved this Court in the present proceedings, this Court while issuing notice on 29.08.2025, stayed the operation of the impugned orders of the High Court and directed that the locality/consumers of the area to be covered by the proposed shop would be allotted to any other fair price shop so as to ensure that the beneficiaries keep on getting their monthly quota of food grains. 8. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the entire exercise and conduct of the respondent shows a premeditated design to favour respondent no. 6. It was submitted that initially when the inspection was held in the presence of everyone, a valid ground was taken by the person who conducted the inquiry that because the land of the respondent no. 6 did not maintain the plinth height and that the land was almost three feet below the road level, therefore, it was not found suitable and thus not recommended. It was further submitted that even otherwise, admittedly from the counter affidavit of the State, the distance of proposed site of the appellant was 281 meters as compared to the 670 meters of the respondent no.6. The area and capacity of the appellant’s shop cum godown is 1124.63 Sq.Ft. It was further submitted that even otherwise, admittedly from the counter affidavit of the State, the distance of proposed site of the appellant was 281 meters as compared to the 670 meters of the respondent no.6. The area and capacity of the appellant’s shop cum godown is 1124.63 Sq.Ft. and 1310 quintals and that of respondent no.6 is 850.69 Sq.ft. and 991 quintals. The total area and capacity of the godown and the shop belonging to the appellant is much larger compared to that of the respondent no. 6. It was contended that there is no provision so as to confer power to the Committee or any other authority to conduct a re-inspection. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the provision which had impressed the Division Bench in interfering is 20(iv) of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013. He submits that the said provision is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the said power to go for re-inquiry is only with regard to a report which the Government may call from the Committee relating to the suitability or the desirability of opening a fresh FPS dealership shop in the said locality and only in this context the power can be exercised. It was further contended that more strikingly, the appellant was neither given a notice, nor any re-inspection was done with regard to her premises, but still her marks have been changed in the recommendation of the second report by the Committee. This itself, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is enough to vitiate the entire process. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that even otherwise, on an overall circumspection, a place which is much nearer to the central point and of a much larger area, obviously should be given priority, especially in matters where the public has to approach the shop. It was contended that this is the reason why extra marks are given, both for distance and size. It was contended that this is the reason why extra marks are given, both for distance and size. Learned Senior Counsel summed up his arguments by contending that there being no other change in circumstances, and also no explanation as to under what circumstances, the re-inquiry was ordered, that too, limited to the respondent no.6 as no such information or disclosure has been made in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State before the High Court, it can be presumed that there was no objection brought to the notice of the Committee at that time from any quarter warranting a re-investigation. It was further contended, that it is only a presumption that because there is no water logging, in future also there will not be water logging, whereas it is open knowledge that in the changing scenario, the unpredictability of weather, conditions, if a safeguard can be taken beforehand by ensuring that the area is not below the plinth level, it is a sound assumption and the same is also not in violation of any requirement in law. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the re- inspection was done as per the order of the ADM concerned. However, on a query of the Court with regard to the material which has been brought on record in the counter affidavit of the State, as filed before the High Court, which indicates, if learned counsel for the State is correct that the Committee met on 07.06.2023 (though from the record it appears that it is dated 08.06.2023); the matter was put up before the ADM on 07.06.2023; the ADM directed for such inquiry on 07.06.2023 and the inquiry itself happened on 07.06.2023, is totally unbelievable being impractical. Learned counsel for the State could not explain it in any manner whatsoever. It was submitted by him that whatever is the position of the State, has already been brought on record in the Counter affidavit. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 vehemently tried to defend the order of the authorities by submitting that ultimately it boils down to an administrative decision and some things are better left to the discretion of the administration to take a call, especially in factual matters where it is with regard to allotment of a FPS dealership. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 vehemently tried to defend the order of the authorities by submitting that ultimately it boils down to an administrative decision and some things are better left to the discretion of the administration to take a call, especially in factual matters where it is with regard to allotment of a FPS dealership. It was contended that there being no specific bar to re-inquiry, if in the general public interest a re-inquiry is held and brought on record, the authorities are well within their jurisdiction to revisit the matter. It was further contended that ultimately the object is that the persons/beneficiaries attached to the proposed FPS shop do not have any inconvenience in either approaching the said shop, or otherwise. It was contended that the respondent no.6 was the owner of the premises, whereas the appellant had shown the land to be taken on lease, which should also be considered by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the only disqualification of three feet level below the plinth being the reason not to recommend, cannot be the sole ground for non-consideration. It was contended that if the said is not a disqualification as per the terms of the advertisement or the relevant conditions, this should not be a ground to unsuit him from even being recommended before the Committee. However, he could not controvert the fact that as per the laid down criteria, size of the godown and shop fetches more marks. 11. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are totally in agreement with the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the order impugned needs interference. The manner and mode in which the whole exercise has been conducted speaks volumes. 12. At the beginning, an exercise was conducted and rightly, inspection was done and the matter went before the Committee for consideration. There we are at a loss to understand as to what prompted the Committee to recommend for re-inquiry. At this place we also indicate that even from the material brought on record in the counter affidavit filed by the State before the High Court, there is only a noting in hand by somebody directing for a re-inquiry without disclosing the person who has signed or the authority to do so. At this place we also indicate that even from the material brought on record in the counter affidavit filed by the State before the High Court, there is only a noting in hand by somebody directing for a re-inquiry without disclosing the person who has signed or the authority to do so. It has also not been brought on record, as to when the matter was referred to the ADM and whether after that the ADM gave any order for re-inquiry. On a specific query again to learned counsel for the State with regard to clarifying the position, he says that whatever was there is on record and he has nothing to add. 13. We find it very disturbing that even in discharge of statutory duties, the authorities start assuming that they have some extra power and they can act as per their whims and fancies. In the present case, there is absolutely not even an iota either raised in the counter affidavit of the State, or by the respondent no.6 that he had objected to the first inquiry report, which may have given some sort of semblance or justification for re-inquiry though, would not have made any difference since in his presence the first inspection was held and he had not raised any objection or dispute at that time. What makes the matter even worse is the manner that after three months the re-inspection is conducted, that too, restricted to only one person, who is found fit and more surprisingly, the marks of the appellant also changed in the second round of consideration. All these are glaring issues which prompt us to be more proactive in the present case because a beginning has to be made somewhere”. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals succeed. The order(s) impugned of the High Court as well as the State Government granting FPS dealership to the respondent no. 6 are quashed. The appellant is held entitled to grant of the said FPS dealership. Necessary and consequential orders be issued within four weeks by the authorities concerned without fail. 15. We refrain ourselves from going deeper into the issue for the sake of not exposing the persons behind, especially the officers. No orders as to costs. 16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.