Jagannath Enterprise And ORS. v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

22.6.2026 Ct. No. 10 SB In The High Court At Calcutta Appellate Side Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction WPA 12116 of 2026 Jagannath Enterprise & Ors.

Vs.

State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Ray, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya Mr. Rajdeep Sinha Mr. Sankha Biswas ... for the petitioners Mr. D.N. Ray, Ld. G.P.

Mr. Guddu Singh Mrs. Sarda Sha .... for the State

1. The petitioners are engaged in the business of M. R. Distributorship under the Public Distribution System. The petitioners hold licence bearing No. 0040540 and the tagging of dealers has already been granted in their favour by the respondent authorities.

2. Two distinct vacancy notifications are relevant to the present lis:- a. Notification dated 04.09.2025 pertains to vacancy notification for distributorship under Haltu (D12) Sub-Area Kolkata (South), Sub-Control involving Inter-city Agency Private Limited.

b. Notification dated 08.09.2025 pertains to distributorship under Chandannagar-Champdany Bhadreswar (D3) which is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

3. Pursuant to the Order dated 15.06.2024 the Learned Counsel appearing for the state respondent submits that the said order has subsequently been corrected vide Order dated 27.03.2026 whereby in paragraph No. 24 of the Words "dated 29.05.2025 and all vacancy notices dated 04.09.2025" were directed to be inserted between "2059" and "is".

4. It is submitted by the petitioners that the licence bearing No. 0040540 and the tagging of dealers has already been granted in favour of the petitioners by the respondent authorities and are validly operating their M. R. Distributorship business.

5. However, due to passing of the Order dated 27.05.2026 the respondent authorities have arbitrarily refused to accept the request for allocation of food grains with respect to the petitioners' distributorship firm despite the petitioners having a valid and subsisting licence.

6. It is submitted that the notice of vacancy for distributorship under Chandannagar-Champdany Bhadreswar (D3) dated 08.09.2025 is different from the notification dated 04.09.2025 concerning Haltu (D12).

The two notices operate in different sub-areas and cannot be conflated.

7. Having heard the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court is prima facie satisfied with the submissions made by the petitioners that an interference is warranted at this stage.

8. Accordingly, in view of the existing licence and distinct nature of vacancy notices, I direct the respondent No. 4 to forthwith allow the petitioners to continue their M. R. Distributorship business without any disturbance, notwithstanding the Vacancy Notice dated 08.09.2025 for allocation of food grains in respect of ChandannagarChampdany Bhadreswar (D3) within a period of seven weeks from the date of communication of this order.

9. With the above observation and directions the Writ Petition is disposed of.

10.

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

(Smita Das De, J.)