Dismissed

Sanjida Aktari v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Jul 2023WPA/11974/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Public Works Contractor licence dispute, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking postponement of a spot inquiry. The court held that the administrative authority acted legally by verifying eligibility criteria and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any mala fide conduct warranting judicial intervention.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider representations and pass appropriate order was denied.

Sanjida Aktari Vs State of West Bengal and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

Form J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION Appellate Side

¶2

Present : The Hon’ble Justice Bibek Chaudhuri

¶3

WPA 11974 of 2023

¶4

Sanjida Aktari Vs.

¶5

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Musharaf Alam Sk.

Mr. Sujoy Sarkar

Ms. Susmita Ghorai

..for the petitioner

Mr. T. M. Siddique Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee ..for the State

¶11

Item No.11

¶12

Heard & Judgment on: 11.07.2023

¶13

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.

¶14

Pursuant to a vacancy notification in respect of granting of an FPS dealership dated 22^nd November, 2022 the petitioner made an application for grant of licence in her favour. In all there were 13 applicants who made applications for grant of licence in respect of the same FPS dealership. The Sub-Controller, Food & Supplies

¶15

¶16

Department in the district of Uttar Dinajpur fixed 6^th February, 2023 for holding inquiry to ascertain the eligibility criteria of the applicants which are necessary in terms of clause 12 of Part-II of the vacancy notification.

¶17

On 5^th February, 2023 the petitioner made an application before the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies Department, Raiganj requesting him to postpone the proposed inquiry dated 6^th February, 2023 on account of her father’s illness. The said application was not adhered to by the respondent No.2. Again on 27^th April, 2023 the petitioner made an application for extension of time for holding inquiry. The respondents failed to take any step over the said representation dated 29^th April, 2023. So, is the writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to consider and pass appropriate order in respect of the petitioner’s representation dated 5^th February, 2023 and 27^th April, 2023.

¶18

Learned advocate for the State respondents has submitted a report in the form of an affidavit. On perusal of which it is ascertained that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies Department and his team already enquired into the matter and verified the spot to ascertain as to whether the applicants have godown as per the dimensions specified in Rule 12(IV) of the Vacancy Notification. It is stated on behalf of the State respondent that on 6^th

¶19

¶20

February, 2023 one Talebur Rahaman represented the present petitioner and spot inquiry report shows that on the date of application the petitioner had no godown even on the date of inquiry. The construction was being carried out on the land mentioned by the petitioner.

¶21

In view of such circumstances, as the petitioner had no godown on the date of inquiry, the Inspecting Team submitted a report stating, inter alia, that the petitioner did not comply with the eligibility criteria as mentioned in Clause 12 of Part-II of the Vacancy notification.

¶22

Considering the instant writ petition as well as the report submitted by the State Respondents this Court is of the view that it is absolutely within the domain of the administrative decision to fix a date of inspection to see as to whether the applicants have the requisite eligibility criteria or not. The petitioner cannot claim postponement of the date of inspection which was fixed by the administrative authority. The act of the Administrative Authority cannot be said to be mala fide, illegal and arbitrary because not only the petitioner in respect of all other applicants similar date was fixed for inspection. The said date was not extended on the prayer of any other applicant. The Court finds that the petitioner made the

¶23

¶24

application for postponement of inspection because of the fact that her godown was not ready on 6^th February, 2023.

¶25

In view of such circumstances, I do not find any scope to issue

¶26

prerogative writ in the instant case against the respondents.

¶27

The writ petition is summarily dismissed.

¶28

The report submitted by the State Respondent be kept with the

¶29

record.

¶30

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

Sanjida Aktari v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjida Aktari v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S S Binu Vs State of West Bengal & Nar

Manjeet Gaba Vs State of West Bengal

Mangat Singh Gaba Vs State of West Bengal & ANR3

Sunit Muni Maharaj Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Joginder Kr. Kapoor Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Nirup Manna Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.