Binod Prasad vs State of West Bengal and Others

Samapti Chatterjee, J.

The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the appointment given to the private respondent No. 6 in respect of foreign liquor off shop in Darjeeling area. In response to an advertisement published in ''Ganashakti'' on 26th November, 2004, the petitioner applied for grant of foreign liquor off shop in respect of Ward No. 29 under Siliguri Municipal Corporation along with other applicants. Thereafter lottery was held and pursuant to the said lottery, the private respondent No. 6 was selected by the authority for grant of foreign liquor off shop in respect of said Ward No. 29 under Siliguri Municipal Corporation, District Darjeeling. The petitioner being aggrieved, made a representation challenging the said selection of the private respondent complaining, inter alia, that the selection was bad in law because under Rule 29 of the said Rule within 15 days the offered site of the private respondent was not accepted. Therefore, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that the appointment of the private respondent No. 6 should be cancelled. To that effect petitioner also made representations. Those were also not considered in accordance with law.

Mr. Sengupta, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya, it is the contention of Mr. Sengupta that the site which was already offered by the private respondent No. 6 was within time but after inspection it was found that the said site was not ''Objection Free''. Therefore, vide order dated 10th May, 2006, the authority extended the time for offering alternative site and that site was offered by the private respondent within the 90 days'' stipulated period and it was found that the said site was Objection Free; as a result, the private respondent No. 6 was granted licence in accordance with law and no illegality was made in respect of appointment of the Respondent No. 6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perusing the records, it is found that the petitioner''s representations dated 6th February, 2006 and 17th March, 2006 against the selection of the respondent No. 6 are still pending before the authority for disposal.

Since a considerable time has already been elapsed, therefore, respondent No. 3 is directed to dispose of the petitioner''s representations in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the private respondent, preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of the server copy of this order and communicate the decision of the hearing within two weeks thereof to the parties.

Needless to mention, I have not gone into the merits of the case and all points are kept open to be decided by the respondent No. 3 by taking independent decision.

With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.

Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.