Sahajahan Mandal v. State Of West Bengal And ORS.

21.01.2026 Ct. no.10 Sl. 13 b.r.

WPA 137 of 2026 Sahajahan Mandal Vs.

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

Mr. Samiran Mandal Mr. S.C. Dhara Mr. Abhinaba Dan .... For the petitioner Ms. Sonal Sinha Ms. Ashmita Chakraborty ..... for the State.

1. Affidavit of service filed in Court, is taken on record.

2. Heard the parties through their learned counsels.

3. The petitioner in the instant case applied for the FPS vacancy in the prescribed form in respect of an advertisement issued by the Director, District Distribution Procurement & Supply, Government of West Bengal for FPS shop vide notification memo no.

218/SCF&S/BNK/MR/Appointment/2024 dated 21.05.2024 for location at Bankura Sadar Sub-Division, Block-Onda, under Punisol Gram Panchayat at Mouza-

Aguri Band, Punisol near Uppor Danga Baro Masjid.

4. Main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition for grant of FPS Dealership has been cancelled by granting the same in favour of the private respondent without considering educational qualification of the area of the shop and godown being the essential criteria to be considered for granting FPS licence.

5. The petitioner being aggrieved made a representation dated 1012.2025 before the respondent no.5 stating, inter alia, that the petitioner is the suitable candidate for grant of FPS licence but the same remains pending for consideration.

6. Learned counsel for the State-respondents could not apprise and satisfy this Court since she has not received any instruction from the Department.

7. I am of the considered view that the petitioner shall make a comprehensive detailed representation before respondent not within a fortnight including all the relevant documents. The respondent no.5 shall pass a reasoned order

in accordance with law within a period of sixty days from the date of submission of comprehensive representation upon affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, respondent no.6 and other interested persons and communicate this order preferably within a week thereafter.

8. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition, WPA 137 of 2026 stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case.

9. However, it is made clear that in course of hearing, if the respondent no.5 finds that the respondent no.6 is not the suitable candidate to be granted with the FPS licence then the respondent no.5 is at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law to consider the candidature of the petitioner.

10.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.

(Smita Das De, J.)