ABDUL MALEK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner is a partner of a firm operating in its trade name "Damodar Enterprise", engaged in the business of distributorship under the provisions of the West Bengal Public Distribution System, (Maintenance and Control) Order 2003. The petitioner, along with one Monohar Chandra Haider initially had been appointed as a modified ration (M.R.) distributor in the year 1985. At that point of time, practise of food and supplies department of the Government of West Bengal was to appoint such distributor by executing agreements with the individuals selected on the basis of stipulations of executive instruction. It appears that on 3 October 1983, the writ petitioner and said Monohar Chandra Haider had entered into a partnership agreement. (I shall refer to them as AM and MH respectively later in this judgment.) A copy of this agreement has been produced before this Court at the time of hearing, and from this agreement, I find that one of the main objects of this firm was to participate in the business of storage and sale of permitted food and related items on the basis of licence issued by the Government. A vacancy for M.R. Distributorship was declared on or about 25 January 1984 by the Sub-Divisional Controller (SDC), Food and Supplies, Burdwan Sadar at Polempur under his zone. The petitioner along with MH as joint partners of said Damodar Enterprise applied for appointment as M.R. Distributor for this vacancy. Upon selection, a letter of appointment was issued in favour of "(1) Abdul Malek (2) Monohar Chandra Haider, prop. M/s DAMODAR ENTERPRISE" by the SDC.

(2.) THE distributorship agreement was entered into by the State Government with the petitioner and MH on 30th July, 1985. In this agreement also, the petitioner and MH were referred to as "prop." of the said firm. In this agreement, there is no specific reference to the firm as regards its status as partnership, but this agreement records the names of both AM and MH with that abbreviation, as the second party to this agreement, which abbreviation implies proprietors of Damodar Enterprise. It was qualified further in this agreement that they were carrying on business as "M/s. Damodar Enterprise". There is no allegation in this proceeding over running of such business till the year 2006. In the years 1988, 1992 and 1994, certain further agreements appear to have been executed concerning composition of Damodar Enterprise. But so far as relationship of the petitioner and MH with the food and supplies department is concerned, no alteration in terms thereof appears to have taken place.

(3.) THE genesis of the dispute involved in this writ petition lies in a complaint lodged by one Sk. Ajimuddin, being the intervenor in this proceeding, over issue of licence in the names of AM and MH. Though Sk. Ajimuddin was permitted to intervene in this proceeding without any formal order adding him as a party, he has contested this writ petition as a party respondent only, by filing affidavit, and argument has also been advanced on his behalf by his learned Counsel. His case is that he is a partner of the firm, along with AM and MH and Safi Wahuda Rasul, who is the wife of the petitioner. The firm was reconstituted on 1 April 1994 and the recital part of this deed records that the same was being effected for amendment of some of the clauses of earlier deed of partnership. The intervener's compliant addressed to the District Controller (DC) of Food & Supplies, Burdwan was first made on 1 September 2006. Substance of his complaint was that he was a partner* of M/s. Damodar Enterprise along with Monohar Chandra Haider, Abdul Malek and Safi Wahuda Rasul, but the petitioner had applied for such licence in his individual name. Case of the intervenor before this Court is that the original partnership firm had been reconstituted, and all the four aforesaid individuals became partners of the firm. Fresh deed of partnership was executed for the purpose of carrying on the business of wholesale M.R. distributors of rice, wheat etc. but the license for the same was being surreptitiously obtained by the writ petitioner under the 2003 Control Order in the name of two partners only.