Umar Faruk Sarkar v. State Of West Bengal And ORS

17.06.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Sl. No.15 Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Ct No. 3 SG W. P. A. 1223 of 2025 Umar Faruk Sarkar Vs.

State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ms. Matan Chakraborty.

... for the petitioner Mr. Hirak Barman, Mr. Pretom Das ... for the State 1.

Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today is taken on record.

2.

The Petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, seeking a direction upon the respondents to issue the Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealership in his favour for Madhya Hudumdanga-017 under Gram Panchayat Dewanganj, P.S. Haldibari, Dist. Cooch Behar. 3.

The case of the petitioner is that, in response to the vacancy notification issued under Memo No. 263/SCF&S./MKG/22 DATED 08.08.2022, he along with other eligible candidates, had submitted an application for the said dealership. Following the selection process, one Smt. Rahila Parvin was selected for the dealership. Aggrieved by the said selection, the petitioner had earlier preferred a writ petition being WPA 1917 of 2023, which was finally disposed of by judgment dated 14.11.2024. Pursuant to the said judgment, the concerned respondent authorities

conducted a detailed inspection and subsequently suspended and revoked the FPS dealership granted to Smt. Rahila Parvin on the ground of misrepresentation in the application form.

4.

It is the submission of the petitioner that he satisfies all the eligibility criteria as per the original notification and, therefore, the FPS dealership ought to be granted in his favour. Though, he has filed a representation dated 30.01.2025 to this effect, however, no response has not yet been received till date. 5.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the authorities are willing to consider petitioner's representation dated 30.01.2025 and shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law within a time bound manner.

6.

In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that his client shall be satisfied if the aforesaid representation is considered within a time bound manner.

7.

In light of the submissions made by the respective parties, this Court directs the respondent no. 8 to decide petitioner's representation within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to all the concerned parties.

8.

With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

9.

Needless to mention if the parties are aggrieved by such decision, they shall be at liberty to take recourse in accordance with law.

10.

Since no affidavits have been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ petition shall not be deemed to have been admitted.

11.

There shall be no order as to costs.

12.

Let urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.

(Gaurang Kanth, J.)