Md Sohail Alam v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

09.09.2022 ssi WPA 9426 of 2022 Md. Sohail Alam -vs- The State of West Bengal & others.

Ct 39 Mr. Sk Abdus Salam Mr. Subrata Mukherjee ....for the petitioner Mr. Md. T. M. Siddiqui, AGP Mr. Y. Singhi ...for the State This is an application seeking direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for M.R. dealership at Mouza- Sathatia in North 24 Parganas. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

Despite service, no one appears on behalf of the State. Let Mr. Md. T. M. Siddiqui and Mr. Y. Singhi, learned Advocates, who ordinarily appear on behalf of the State, represent the State in this Case. Their engagement for the State may be regularized in due course.

A copy of the writ petition is served upon Mr. Siddiqui in Court.

Mr. Sk Abdus Salam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits as follows. Earlier there was a mass petition made by the residents of Sathatia village including the petitioner before the respondent authorities so that a M.R. dealer may be appointed for that particular

region so that the residents could avail of ration articles including kerosene. The petitioner also made an application for obtaining a M.R. dealership for the area which was received by the concerned authority on 09.08.2016. Yet, till date the application has not been taken into consideration. Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. It appears that in 2015, a mass petition was filed in this regard. However, the petitioner's application was served upon the Director, Department of Food and Supply on 09.08.2016. It actually ought to have been addressed to Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supply, Barasat. The Sub-Divisional Controller(Food and Supply) was not even made a party in this application. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the State and have perused the writ petition.

It appears that the application was made long ago in 2016. Secondly, the same was not addressed to the appropriate authority.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty granted to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the proper authority regarding obtaining of M.R. dealership.

There shall be no order as to costs.

The merits have not been gone into.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Jay Sengupta, J.)