Jogendra Nath Das v. The State Of West Bengal And ORS
Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Appellate Jurisdiction 9 01.9.2023 Sc Ct. no. 2 WPA 708 OF 2023 --------- Jogendra Nath Das Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Ms. Ankita Dey ....For the Petitioner Mr. Hirak Barman Mr. Momenur Rahman.
....For the State Ms. Ankita Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention to a communication, dated October 31, 1994, Annexure-P2 at page 12 to the writ petition, written by the respondent no.3 submits that, the petitioner applied for M.R. Dealership, at Petla-Adabari in 1992 and such an application of petitioner was sent for consideration by the respondent no.3 before the Executive Officer of the concerned Panchayat Samity. She then refers to the representation of the petitioner made before the respondent authorities dated December 15, 2022, Annexure-P6 at page 19 to the writ petition and submits that, since 1992 no step had been taken and even thereafter the representation was made in December, 2022 and the same has also not received any attention of
the State authority. She prays for a direction upon respondent authority to consider representation dated December 15, 2022 and the claim of the petitioner.
Mr. Momenur Rahman, learned State counsel appears for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. He submits that a stale claim for about thirty-one years is sought to be revived and agitated now, through this writ petition.
Mr.
Rahman further submits that relevant M.R. Dealership is no more in existence. He submits that, at the relevant point of time since no suitable candidature was found, all the ration cards pertaining to that particular M.R. Dealership, were shifted to other nearby Fair Price Shops. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the materialson-record, this Court is of the view that, through this writ petition, a thirty-one years' old claim is sought to be given life, which is not permissible in law. The writ petition is grossly a belated one. More so, as submitted on behalf of the learned State counsel that, the relevant M.R. Dealership is no more in existence, which is the result of a State policy.
In view of the foregoing discussions and reasons and considering the case made out in the writ petition, this Court is of the firm view that the writ petition is totally devoid of any merit and not sustainable in law.
However, if petitioner applies for obtaining any M. R. Dealership, for consideration of such an application, this order shall not stand in the way and the authority shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
It is also made clear that, this order shall not create any equity or right in favour of the petitioner, if the petitioner is found otherwise ineligible to receive his claim strictly in accordance with law. Since affidavits are not called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
With the observation made as above, this writ petition, WPA 708 of 2023 stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.
Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished expeditiously.
(Aniruddha Roy, J.)