In Re. Sailendra Nath Mondal

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The writ petition has been filed by one Sailendra Nath Mondal praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus to command the Respondents not to give effect to the impugned communication-dated February 7, 1991, issued by the Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Kalyani, (Annex. ''C'') and to further command the Respondents to replace the Diesel Ration Card by Kerosene Ration Card and for other consequential reliefs.

It is stated in detail that the Petitioner purchased one Kerosene Oil pump set sometime in the year 1981 and submitted an application before the Sub divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Ranaghat, through the Block Development Officer, Chakdah and prayed for grant of permit for 300 litres of kerosene oil per month for running his pump set for irrigation purpose of the lands in question under his cultivation. The said application was duly recommended by the Prodhan, Dewuli Gram Panchayat and the Block Development Officer, Chakdah. In view of such recommendation, the Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Ranaghat, was pleased to grant permit for 20 litres of kerosene oil per week for running the said kerosene oil pump set. It is further Stated that the Block Development Officer, Chakdah, in the month of December 1990, issued diesel Ration Card to the Petitioner bearing No. 2713 and the grant of kerosene oil card was refused. Allotment of diesel per month was 100 litres. It is stated that the Petitioner did not ask for grant of diesel and there was no reason for rejecting his prayer for kerosene oil. Being aggrieved he has come to the writ Court seeking the relief mentioned above.

The writ petition is opposed by the State by filing affidavit-in-opposition, sworn by the Respondent No. 5,

Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Kalyani, wherein it is stated that on January 22, 1991, he received from the Respondent No. 6, Block Development Officer, Chakdah, an application dated December 20, 1990, of the Petitioner submitted to the Respondent No. 3, District Controller, Food and Supplies, Nadia, through the Respondent No. 6 for grant of permit of kerosene oil for supply of 120 litres of kerosene per week at the Government rate for running his pump set for irrigation purpose of his lands. On receipt of such application, the Respondent No. 5 sent the same to the Area Inspector (Food and Supply), Chakdah, for enquiry and report. The said Area Inspector (Food and Supply), Chakdah, sent the same to the concerned Area Sub-Inspector for early enquiry and report. Thereafter, the said Area Inspector submitted his report to the Respondent No. 5 in writing on the back of the application of the Petitioner, on January 31, 1991. The said report with 6 enclosures thereto are annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition. In the said; report, it was indicated to the effect that the diesel permit was issued to the Petitioner inadvertently on the basis of an application for kerosene oil permit and for the purpose of the Petitioner''s irrigation purposes. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 as per Memo. No. 147/FS/KLY/91 dated February 7, 1991, informed the Respondent No. 6 with copy to the Petitioner, the Area Inspector (Food and Supply), Chakdah, Sabhapati, Chankdah Panchayat Samiti and the Sub-divisional Officer, Kalyani, the Respondent No. 4, regarding prayer of the Petitioner for supply of kerosene oil for Cultivation purposes observing that there was no such provision to entertain any such person having the profiteering tendency and as such, the prayer of the Petitioner for kerosene was rejected. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 as per his office memo, dated February 27, 1991, informed the Respondent No. 3 that it was clearly indicated by the Director of Consumer Goods, West Bengal, that special permit for S.K. Oil should only be issued to a non-profiteering organisation. Further, to the tune of the guideline outlined by the Director of Consumer Goods, the Respondent No. 5 indicated that it was urgent and appropriate to discourage the prayer of the Petitioner as after enquiry it was recognised that the Petitioner was a profiteering institution.

This Court directed production of records. At the time of hearing, Mr. Kargupta, learned Advocate for the State Respondents, has made a submission which is not at all appreciated by this Court. Although in the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated that the diesel permit was granted inadvertently, Mr. Kargupta, learned Advocate, insisted that there is a procedure to issue diesel permit upon the recommendation of the Prodhan of a Panchayat Samity even if there is no application for grant of diesel permit. This Court directed for production of any such Circular, Notification, Government Order or any Guideline thereto, but nothing has been produced so far, but it was insisted that a procedure was followed as such. Such argument appears to be thoroughly misconceived and fallacious. If there is any such procedure this Court deprecates the same and restrains the Respondents authorities to follow the same where there will be no application for grant of diesel oil only on the recommendation of the Grampanchayat authorities, to a person who is not an Applicant at all. This type of grant, if any, will shock ordinary common sense. In the present case, while the Area Inspector had recommended and opined that inadvertently diesel permit has been granted and instead kerosene permit should be granted as prayed for, it is not appreciated as to why such representation was not at all considered before rejecting and as to why no opportunity of hearing was given. No records have been produced in this Court to show that an enquiry was made as to why the Petitioner has been described as a profiteering organisation and/or for such profiteering organisation kerosene oil is being sought for. If the writ Petitioner runs a pump set for irrigation purposes, there is no bar for him to obtain kerosene and there is nothing to discourage him thereto. In the affidavit-in-opposition nothing has been stated nor any guideline has been produced before this Court.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the grant of permit of diesel oil be set aside and the decision for rejecting the grant of kerosene oil permit to the Petitioner is also set aside. The Respondents authorities are directed to take effective steps to consider the Petitioner''s application for grant of kerosene oil permit within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order, by giving chance of hearing to the Petitioner and dispose of the same with speaking order. It is made clear that if the Petitioner does not run any profiteering organisation with the kerosene, the kerosene oil permit may be granted to him in the manner sought for.

The writ petition is disposed of without costs. All other orders are vacated.

Let xerox copy of the order authenticated by the Deputy Registrar (Ct.) be given to both the sides on the usual terms and conditions.