Sneha Mondal v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

24.06.2026 Sl. No.: 11 Court No.10 BM WPA 12067 of 2026 SNEHA MONDAL VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.

Mr. Swapan Kumar Pal Mr. Soham Pal ... for the petitioner Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Jr. Govt. Adv.

Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal ... for the State

1. The core issue for determination in the instant writ petition as to whether the inaction and silence on the part of the state respondent in finalising the candidature of the petitioner for grant of licence for a fair price shop, despite approval of application, completion of inspection, submission of all documents, and conduct of interview is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 and 19(1) (g) Constitution of India warranting judicial interference.

2. The petitioner submits that she has made an application for the grant and issuance of licence for FPS vacancy at (Palangpur Primary School), Amritpur, Keshpur, Paschim Medinipur, being vacancy No.202200245109.

On 12.08.2024.

Subsequently the application submitted by the petitioner was successfully approved and a date was fixed date for inspection.

3. It is submitted that prior to the interview an inspection was inducted on 18.2.2025.

4. On the date of inspection, all the relevant documents were submitted before the authority concerned.

5. However, the petitioner remained un-informed about the fate of the application filed on 12.08.2024. Subsequently, on 7.5.2025 the respondent no.2 informed the petitioner to appear in person before the District Level Fair Price Shop Selection Committee for interview along with all original documents on 15.05.2025 at 11:30AM at office of respondent no.4.

6. After approving the application and conducting the inspection on 18.02.2025, the State respondent remained silent in considering the candidature of the petitioner and have failed to pass a reasoned order thereon, despite completion of all stages of selection process.

7. It is further submitted that due to such inaction on State respondent petitioner made a representation on 09.12.2026 before the respondent no.4 but the same remains pending for consideration.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondent does not object to the same for consideration of the representation dated 9.04.2026 filed by petitioner.

9. Having heard the parties and after perusing the records this court is prima facie satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioner. The inaction on the part of the respondent authorities is unjustified and interference is warranted at this stage to balance the equity and for the ends of justice.

10.

This court observes, that the State as a modal employer and grant for licences, is expected to act fairly, reasonably without undue delay. Accordingly I direct respondent no.4 to consider representation dated 9.04.2026 within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order with the assistance of the concerned inspector and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, upon affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders and if any, either in person or through authorised representative and communicate the decision within a week thereafter. 11.

However, it is made clear that during the course of hearing if the petitioner is found to be the most suitable candidate, the authority concerned shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Till the disposal of the representation, no steps shall be taken to fill up the said vacancy notification no. 202200245109 with any other candidate.

12.

With the above observation and directions the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13.

Since the affidavit has not been called for, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed to have been denied and not admitted.

14.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.

( Smita Das De, J. )