Manali Singha Kuilya v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS.

7.4. 2025 item No19 n.b.

ct. no. 24 WPA 3784 of 2025 Smt. Manali Singha Kuliya Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Anirban Das, Mr. Samrat Chakborty, ..... for the petitioner.

Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

Sub-Divisional Controller(F&S), Uluberia, Howrah issued notification for FPS vacancy vide 1140/SCFS/ULU/2023 dated December12 2023. The petitioner applied for licnece by making specific application. Her proposed shop cum godown inspected by the concerned authority. She was called for personal interview by the concerned District Level Fairprice Shop Selection Committee. Thereafter, it came to notice to the petitioner that respondent authority had tried to give licence in favour of the private respondent being blue eyed person. She made a representation to the concerned District Magistrate as well as the Director DDPS(F&S) Department, Government of West Bengal. Her representation was not considered. Ultimately, the private respondent was selected for the said licnece. Hence this writ petition.

It is the contention of the petitioenr that the petitioner is must suitable candidate but the concerned officers of the Food & Supply, flouting rules and regulations has allowed the licence to grant in favour of the private respondent. She has made several points regarding illegalities done by the concerned respondent authority for granting licnece in favour of the private respondent.

Despite service none appears on behalf of the State respondent.

It appears that the petitioner has made a representation to the concerned DDEPS, Food & Supply, Government of West Bengal on January 27, 2025(p-28 of the writ petition).

It is the abundant duty of State/State instrumentality that they must have disposed of the representation of the petitioner according to provisions of law.

Under the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Director, DDPS(F&S), Government of West Bengal being the respondent no.3 of the writ petition to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated January 27, 2025 within six weeks from the date of communication of this order by giving an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

The decision of the authority shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

I make it clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of this matter.

Respondent no.3 is at leave to disposed of the representation according to law without being influenced by any observation of this Court.

Since no affidavit has been exchanged between the parties, the allegation made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been not admitted.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( Subhendu Samanta, J.)