Abdur Rahaman Molla vs The State of West Bengal

Joymalya Bagchi, J.—The impugned order dated 25th October, 2012 passed by the respondent no. 4, Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Barasat, refusing the prayer of the petitioner for appointing him as M.R. Dealer on compassionate ground, has been challenged in the writ petition.

The petitioner claims to be the nephew of the former dealer, Badruddin Molla (since deceased). He contends that under the personal law, he is the legal heir of the deceased. He also contends that an application dated 1st August, 2011 was made by him for his appointment to such dealership on compassionate ground under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (M & C) Order, 2003. Hearing was given to the petitioner on 26th March, 2012. Thereafter, a notice was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to furnish Legal Heir Certificate of deceased dealer from the concerned Prodhan and also ''No Objection Certificate'' in the form of affidavit from other legal heirs.

It is the case of the petitioner that he submitted the requisite documents before the respondent no. 4 herein. No decision was taken in the matter. Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. 13978(W) of 2012, which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 21st August, 2012, directing the respondent No. 4 to consider the application within a time frame. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order was passed.

Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that without considering the aforesaid documents including the affidavits filed by other heirs and Sabana Bibi giving ''No Objection'' to the claim of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed.

Mr. Biswajit De, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that as the earlier application of the wife, Sabana Bibi, was rejected, steps have been taken for declaration of vacancy.

In rebuttal, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the process of selection has been initiated violating the order passed by this Court earlier.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and the materials on record, I find that the petitioner, as a legal heir of the deceased licensee, made an application for appointment on compassionate ground. In response to such application, notice was served upon the petitioner to submit the relevant documents including affidavits endorsing ''no objection'' from other legal heirs. It is claimed by the petitioner that such documents were furnished, which have been annexed at page 33 to 37 to the writ petition. In spite of the application being made and the documents so filed, as claimed by the petitioner, it appears that the application of the petitioner was not considered on its own merits.

I am of the considered opinion that in the event petitioner had filed the requisite documents, the same ought to have been considered and his application for appointment on compassionate ground be dealt with accordingly.

In view of the aforesaid facts, I set aside the impugned order dated 25th October, 2012 passed by the respondent no. 4 and I direct the respondent no. 4 to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and examine as to whether the petitioner had, in fact, filed the necessary documents in response to the notice issued by him on 2nd April, 2012 being Annexure-''P6'' to the writ petition. In the event it appears that the petitioner had filed the requisite documents in response to the said notice, then the application of the petitioner shall be considered in the light of the documents so submitted and after due enquiry as to the validity thereof. In the event, respondent no. 4 finds that no such documents had been filed by the petitioner in response to the said notice, he shall pass appropriate order on the application of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 would also be at liberty to make adequate enquiry as to the voluntariness of the relinquishment of right by other legal heirs, if necessary. Such exercise shall be completed and a reasoned decision shall be taken by the respondent no. 4 in the matter within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. Decision, so taken, shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

No steps shall be taken in respect of the vacancy declared in respect of the M.R. Dealer till the decision is communicated to the petitioner.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of without, however, any order as to costs.