Soma Bhattacharyya vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Let the affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be taken on record. The sum and substance of the dispute in question is whether the interest of one

individual under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India has precedence over the rights of a large number of consumers and beneficiaries under

the Public Distribution System under the State. The latter’s rights coming under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner had

sought an M.R. Dealership being transferred in his name on a compassionate grounds in place and stead of her deceased mother. The Rationing

Officer of Bhatpara North 24 Parganas, by an order dated 10th April, 2017 states as follows: -

 “In reference to your application date 22/02/2017 intimating R.O. Bhtp that Smt. Susama Bhattacharjee, the owner of FPS- 479 expired on

26/01/2017 and subsequently requesting for inclusion of your name (i.e. Soma Bhatacharyya, daughter of Susama Bhattacharjee) as the owner of the

respective FPS-479, I am to state that the land lord of same premises send an objection letter on 20.02.2017 to this office that he is unwilling to allow

rent his premises to be rented as a Ration Ship. In this connection, you are hereby instructed to arrange a new location for the incoming operations of

the said shop and submit your application to this officer as desired by R.O. Bhatpara.â€​

There are admittedly disputes between the writ petitioner and the landlord of the premises where the M.R. Dealership shop room is located. The

landlord had asked the writ petitioner to vacate the premises. The landlord had also written to the Rationing Officer, Bhatpara that the tenant/writ

petitioner may be in illegal occupation of the property as he desires that the writ petitioner should not continue as a tenant in the said premises. Based

on the above, the impugned order has been issued to the writ petitioner and asked him to arrange for alternative accommodation.

What is clear from the above is that the authorities have already decided to transfer the dealership in favour of the writ petitioner in place and stead of

her deceased mother. What, however, is in issue is as to whether such licence and/or dealership can be given to the writ petitioner despite the doubt

on the legality and/or propriety of the writ petitioner’s tenancy. Admittedly, a suit has been filed by the writ petitioner against the landlord and an

order of temporary injunction has been passed by a Civil Court in favour of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner argues that she is ready and willing

to file an affidavit in terms of a Circular dated 31st July 2003, issued by the Director of Rationing, West Bengal, that in the event of the petitioner

being evicted pursuant to orders of court or a direction to vacate the premises in question, her licence could be placed under suspension.

 The writ petitioner makes a two-fold submission. Firstly, that the authorities have an alternative remedy of suspending her licence in the event an

eviction order passed against her and that the consumers could be tagged to a nearby M.R. Dealership. The writ petitioner secondly argues that in the

case of transfer of dealership on compassionate grounds, a no objection from the landlord need not be insisted in terms of the Circular dated 31st July,

2003. The communication given by the landlord to the Rationing Officer is illegal and she should be allowed to continue dealership under the licence.

Per contra, Mr. Amitesh Banerjee, Senior Advocate appearing for the State, submits that a transfer of licence in favour of the writ petitioner, in fact,

amounts to issuance of a fresh licence. The primary object and purpose of such dealership under the Public Distribution System of the State of West

Bengal is to provide subsidised food grains and edible items to persons below the poverty line. Such consumers cannot be exposed to any uncertainty

when the State has been notified that a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, being the writ petition, in the instant case. I find force in such

argument.

A right to suspend licence exists even otherwise under the control order of 2013. The same cannot be disputed. But a penalty, or a right to impose

penalty of suspension on the petitioner cannot be a ground to ignore notice of likely disruption, at the very inception of grant of a licence or a

dealership. The second argument that since a no objection need not be insisted in case a transfer of a licence, the objection of the landlord need not be

considered of the State authorities, is preposterous. Upon being notified of a dispute between a landlord and a potential M. R. Dealer, the State is

definitely entitled to consider the same to avoid putting the consumers under such dealership to uncertainty and inconvenience.

Considering the fact that the whole purpose and object of such dealership is to provide essential food grains for needy consumers in society, I would

hold that the interest of such consumers look far above the interest of the writ petitioner under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. It is the

State’s duty to protect the consumers. The writ petition must, therefore, fail. If however the petitioner arranges a suitable alternative

accommodation to the satisfaction of the State, it is needless to mention that the latter will grant transfer such M.R. Dealership in favour of the

petitioner.

The writ petitioner shall comply with the impugned order and arrange alternative accommodation within the period of three months stipulated in the

impugned order. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not provide alternative accommodation within three months, the State shall declare the

dealership as available and vacant, for being allotted in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. W.P. 25268 (W) of 2017 is

dismissed.No order as to costs.Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the

requisite formalities.