High CourtsSingle Bench

Uttam Khatuya vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 7 May 2018 · Citation: (2018) 05 CAL CK 0143

HON’BLE JUDGES
HARISH TANDON, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 14
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition4423 (W) of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 483 words

The petitioner challenges the Memo dated 6th December 2017 as well as 26th December 2017 by which the authority decided to declare vacancy due

to the death of the dealer despite the fact that an application on compassionate ground was filed by the heirs of the said deceased dealer. The

attention is drawn to para 20 (vi) of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 wherein the entitlement for

engagement of compassionate ground is duly provided.

The petitioner says that if the control order permits the engagement on compassionate ground, the authority can not take out the vacancy from such

pool and throw it into a common pool. There is no hesitation in my mind that once the statutory rules or the regulations provides and engagement on

compassionate ground, it cannot be frustrated by such action. Though it is an exception to a normal rule and to some extent offends Article 14 yet it is

duly recognized and, therefore, the authorities have to act strictly in conformity therewith.

The learned advocate appearing for the respondents authority submits that by virtue of paragraph 20 (vi), the recommendation/application should be

forwarded by the District Controller, Food and Supplies through the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply to the State Government

with his comments for necessary approval. Since such application along with the report has not been forwarded in the manner as provided therein,

there appears to be some delay in processing the said application.

Since the State is represented, this Court does not find any difficulty in passing a direction in this regard. It has further been informed to the Court that

the District Controller has forwarded the application along with his comment to the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply, who under

the said provision is required to forward the same to the State Government for necessary approval but the same has not been done from such end.

Therefore, the Director, District Distribution Procurement and Supply is required to forward the application containing the comments of the District

Controller to the State Government within two weeks from the date of communication of this order for necessary approval and the appropriate

authority of the State Government shall take a decision within three weeks from the date of receipt of such application from the Director, District

Distribution Procurement and Supply and communicate the same to the appropriate authority for necessary actions.

So far as the impugned memos are concerned, it is submitted on behalf of the State that there is no question of any declaring vacancy by the

authorities on the death of the registered dealer and, therefore, apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. In view of the specific stand taken by the

State, there is no occasion to set aside and/or quash the said memos as the interest of the petitioner has been sufficiently protected. The writ petition is

thus disposed of.