AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging inter alia, the order of rejection of the petitioners application dated 25.7.2025 for grant of Fair Price Shop Dealership against vacancy ID No. 202200220505 for Harsura Mouza under Balurghat Block, Dist-Dakshin Dinajpur.
Apropos the facts of the case, the petitioner had earlier submitted an application on 30.8.2024 for the said FPS vacancy. The said application was rejected on the ground of “re-notification”/
Subsequently, a fresh notification was issued for the same vacancy. Pursuant to the petitioner submitted a fresh application on 25.7.2025. However, the said application was also rejected without assigning any reason.
Aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In replying vide memo no. 274/SCFS/BLO/2025 dated 23.5.2025 issued by the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Balurghat, it was stated that based on the enquiry report, the petitioners application was rejected on the ground that his distance from the central point was more than the distance of the private respondents.
The petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed representation dated 3.2.2026 before the respondent no. 2 herein seeking inter alia, for proper adjudication of the issue regarding approval of the FPS vacancy at Harsura. However, the said representation is still pending for consideration.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the application dated 25.7.2025 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice as no reason was assigned in the order of rejection.
The only reason communicated letter though RTI was “distance”, but the same has not been applied uniformly and transparently.
The petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility criteria laid down in the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (M&C) order, 2024 and the relevant notification.
The pending representation dated 3.2.2026 before respondent no. 2 has not yet been decided till date, causing prejudice to the petitioner.
The petitioner submits that the rejection be set aside by considering the candidature of the petitioner afresh.
Learned counsel appearing for the state respondent submits that the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the WBTPDS (MNC) order 2024 and guidelines issued by the department.
The enquiry report clearly reveals that the private respondents were found to be more eligible on the basis of distance from central point.
The decision taken by the concerned authority is reasoned and does not warrant any interference by this court.
Learned counsel appearing for private respondent vehemently opposes the writ petition and submits that the private respondents are the residents of the local area and their distance from the central point at Harsura F.P. School is less than that of the petitioner.
They are the most eligible candidates as per the criteria laid down and have already been considered by the department.
The writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.
Having heard the parties upon records made available this court has taken the judicial note from the RTI reply, that the sole ground for rejection was distance from central point”. However the authority has not passed any speaking order and the petitioner’s representation is still pending.
In the interest of justice and to ensure proper adjudication, it would be appropriate that the competent authority considers the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all stake holders.
Considering the facts and circumstances the respondent no. 2 with the assistance of respondent no. 6 is directed as follows:-
a. To consider and dispose of the writ petitioner’s representation dated 3.2.2026 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order
b. Pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
c. Provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the private respondents and other stake holders, if any.
d. Communicate such decision to all parties within a week thereafter.
It is made clear, that if upon consideration, the authority finds the petitioner to be the most eligible candidate, respondent no. 2 shall be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law for approval of FPS dealership. If required, an independent enquiry may be conducted to ascertain the dispute regarding distance.
The petitioner and the private respondents are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments before the authority. Respondent no. 2 shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order and shall decide the matter independently on its own merits.
With the above observations and direction, the Writ Petition being WPA 11767 of 2026 is disposed of without going into the merits of the case.
Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all the necessary formalities.