TARANI RAJWAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A vacancy notification of dealership of fair price shop at village Kaliganj (Khidirpore/ Narayanpur) within Kaliganj Gram Panchayat under Krishnanagar Sub division was published in the official website of the Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal on 11/3/2020. The said notification was published in the Bengali News Paper 'Anandabazar Patrika' on 29/1/2021. The vacancy notification disclosed the eligibility criteria to be fulfilled by the applicants. Amongst them, two important requirements are that the applicant must have a godown measuring about 400 square ft. and an office-cum-shop room measuring about 200 square ft. in the locality where the vacancy has been declared and the applicant must have a deposit in his bank account an amount of Rs.5,00,000.00on the date of filing the application and preceding one year. The petitioner had a deposit of more than Rs.5,00,000.00 on the date of notification but he had no such deposit in his bank account for a period preceding one year. Therefore, he could not file any application for grant of licence in respect of the said dealership. It will not be out of place to record that the petitioner has a godown and office cum shop room as per specification disclosed in the vacancy notification. The petitioner enquired as to whether the financial requirement is a mandatory criteria or not and he came to learn from the office of the Sub divisional Controller that the said criteria is mandatory and therefore, he was not eligible to apply for dealership of fair price shop in question.

(2.) The petitioner also came to know from the office of the Sub-divisional Controller that none of the applicants could satisfy the eligibility criteria with regard to financial solvency and he had the legitimate expectation that the applications for FPS dealership would be cancelled and a new vacancy with a new financial requirement would be published by the State respondents whom the petitioner would be eligible to file application. However, all on a sudden the petitioner came to know that the private respondent was granted license for fair price shop relaxing the financial requirement.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that he never knew that financial requirement would be relaxed by the State respondents. Had it been so, the petitioner could have filed application for dealership in question. The specific act and conduct of the state respondents are arbitrary and unjust and violates the right to equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It also offends Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and/or setting aside the order of appointment of the private respondents as a fair price ship dealer; direction upon the State respondents to publish fresh notification in respect of the said vacancy and other reliefs incidental thereto.