Disposed

Nasir Uddin Dewan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC10 Sept 2024WPA/22209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the non-creation of a vacancy for the petitioner to take over his deceased father's MR dealership licence. The court directed the Food and Supply Department to decide the representation on merits after hearing the petitioner and co-responder.

What did the court decide?

Direction to concerned authority to take a reasoned decision within six weeks.

Nasir Uddin Dewan Vs State of West Bengal and Ors. — Service and Employment | Calcutta HC (2024)

¶1

10.09.24 24 Ct. No.24 Sws.M

¶2

WPA 22209 of 2024

¶3

Nasir Uddin Dewan Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Ram Anand Agarwala Ms. Nibedita Pal Mr. ananda Gopal Mukherjee Ms. Sonam Ray Ms. N. Khatoon

¶5

….for the petitioner

¶6

Ms. Sonal Sinha Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee

¶7

….for the State Mr. Shrayam Bhattacharyya Mr. Md. Rizwan Alam

¶8

……for the respondent No. 5

¶9

Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

Father of the petitioner, namely, one Moslem Ali Dewan was appointed as MR dealer at Mouza – Bansra. Because of old age and physical problem, the petitioner’s father submitted an application on 13^th May, 2002 to the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, (SCFS) concern for induction of the petitioner and one of his other sons (respondent No. 5) as partners in the MR dealership business. The said application was considered favourably and the appointment letter dated 17^th May, 2004 was issued by the SCFS recording the names of all three partners in respect of the said business. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner having 70% of the share at that time, petitioner’s father had 20% share and respondent No. 5 had 10% share of the said business. However the father of the petitioner died on 10^th August, 2008. After the demise of the father the

¶11

¶12

petitioner acquired 90% share in the said business. One memo was issued by the concerned authority on 15.07.2024 for submission of application for reconstitution of the partnership firm after demise of erstwhile partner, namely, Moslem Ali Dewan. The present petitioner has submitted an application with the authority concerned on 22^nd August, 2024 for appointment of the petitioner as a dealer in his individual capacity under the compassionate ground. It is the case of the petitioner that the authority concerned has not taken any decision on the basis of the said representation. Hence this writ petition.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 submits that according to the provisions of Chapter 20(VII) of the WBPDS (M&C) Order, 2013, the authority cannot allow the present petitioner individually in respect of the licence of the business. He further submits that the respondent No. 5 may not be excluded from the partnership business.

¶14

Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State authority submits that let a specific direction be passed upon the concerned authority to take an appropriate decision.

¶15

Having heard the submissions of the parties and considering the writ petition along with annexures thereof it appears to me that the concerned authority has not decided the issue regarding the fact whether the licence which was running by the

¶16

¶17

partners can be granted to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The respondent No. 1 is directed to take a reasoned decision on the basis of the representation of the present petitioner (being annexure P4 of the writ petition dated 22^nd August, 2024) within six weeks from the date of communication of this order. In deciding such issue the Principal Secretary, Food and Supply Department shall allow the petitioner as well as the private respondent No. 5 to submit their claims and shall give them reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall pass a reasoned decision on merit according to the provision of law.

¶18

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

The authority concerned shall intimate the decision to the parties within two weeks of the date of passing of the order.

¶20

(Subhendu Samanta, J.)

Nasir Uddin Dewan v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nasir Uddin Dewan 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

Labanya Shee and Anr. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Sayan Bhattacharya Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Swapan Patra Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Mandira Roy Vs Tapan Kumar Roy

Smriti Paul @ Smritikana Paul Vs Union of India & Ors.

Mosaraf Hossain Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.