ANSAR ALI KHAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against the appointment of the respondent no.6 as M.R. Dealer at Village Pukuria, Post Office- Baganda, Police Station- Shyampore under Dhandali Gram Panchayet, District Howrah. One Abdul Rashid Khan was the M.R. Dealer at Village- Pukuria, Post Office- Bangada, Police Station- Shyampore under Dhandali Gram Panchayet, District- Howrah. He surrendered his licence of the above M.R. Dealership to the respondent authority in the year 1999. Consequent thereupon the consumers of the above M.R. shop were tagged with another M.R. Dealer.

(2.) A notice dated July 1, 2005 was issued by the respondent no.4 inviting applications from the eligible persons to issue licence in respect of the above M.R. Dealership. The petitioner and the respondent no.6 applied in response to the above notice amongst other eligible persons. After conducting enquiry, the respondent no.5 submitted his report in respect of all the participants recommending the names of the petitioner as also the respondent no.6 as suitable candidates. The Chief Inspector of the area concerned opined in favour of the petitioner as also the respondent no.6. The respondent no.4 sent the entire matter to the respondent no.3 under memo no.778 dated November 24, 2005. The respondent no.3, in his turn, referred the matter to the respondent no.2 under memo no.1508/DCH/MR dated December5, 2005. After obtaining approval from the government the licence under reference was issued in favour of the respondent no.6. Allotment of M.R. serials was made in favour of the dealership of the respondent no.6 on November 18, 2008 for the first time.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no.6 was not a suitable persons in view of the enquiry conducted by the respondent no.5. Attention of this court is drawn towards the enquiry report of the respondent No.5 dated November 23, 2005 to show that the name of the respondent no.6 appeared in the second page of that report. According to the petitioner, he purchased the land of the erstwhile M.R. dealer of the area in question to set up his shop at the same place. From the enquiry report of the respondent no.5 it appeared that the nature of the above land was described as Bastu. The attention of this court is also drawn towards the enquiry report of the respondent no.5 that the proposed place of the respondent no.6 was described as Danga. Mr. Milan Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the selection of the respondent no.6 is liable to be set aside on the ground of procedural impropriety.