SUKUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has contended that the respondent No. 8 was granted licence in respect of an M. R. shop. At that relevant point of time since the respondent No. 8 was serving as a Primary School Teacher, the school authorities by a letter directed the respondent No. 8 to report whether he would continue as a Primary Teacher or as M.R. dealer. Thereafter, the respondent No.8 executed a registered power-of-attorney in favour of the petitioner to run the M.R. shop. Contention has been made that the authorities concerned accepted the said power-of-attorney executed in favour of the petitioner and allowed him to lift the articles. Licence in respect of the M.R. shop was also renewed regularly. Later, though the power-of-attorney was not revoked, the respondent No. 8 sought to get control over the shop. There were proceedings before the Civil Courts. It is contended by the petitioner that in spite of specific orders by the Civil Courts, the State respondents have failed and neglected to supply articles in respect of the said M.R. shop. Representation was made demanding allotment of articles in respect of the M.R. shop. However, the State authorities have wrongfully refused to continue such supply. Instead the respondent No.7 has been appointed dealer and granted allotment order on M.R. commodities. Contentions have been made that the petitioner being empowered by the registered power-of-attorney is entitled to receive M.R. commodities.

(2.) Mr. Amal Sen reiterating the statements made in the writ petition submitted that under the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 (for short "the Rationing Order") even an agent of an M.R. dealer can run an M.R. shop. Attention was drawn to the definition of "appointed retailer" appearing in clause Sukumar Ghosh vs. State of W. B. (S. Pal, J.) 631 2(2) of the Rationing Order. It was submitted that the said definition includes a person in charge of a godown in which rationing article is stored for sale or distribution. Thus, an agent can be construed as person in charge of godown and can be deemed to be a dealer. Similarly under clause 2(3) of the Rationing Order the definition of "appointed establishment proprietor" included any other person owning, managing or having control of an establishment. It was submitted that as an agent has been recognized under the Rationing Order, anybody who is continuing as an M.R. dealer pursuant to a registered power- of'-attorney should be allowed to continue as M.R. dealer and articles should be supplied subject to the terms and conditions of the licence. Referring to clause 3A of the Rationing Order it was pointed out that anybody who is appointed as a wholesale dealer or retail dealer has to execute an agreement with the authorities. A standard form of agreement has been set out in the schedule to the Rationing Order. Referring to clause 9 of the standard form of agreement it was pointed out that in the instant case the power-of-attorney being annexed to the affidavit-in-reply was sent to the authorities concerned in the year 1974. It was within the knowledge of the authorities and on the strength of the said power-of-attorney the petitioner was continuing as M.R. dealer. The authorities have knowingly permitted the petitioner to manage the affairs of the shop. Thus, it was submitted the State authorities acted illegally in not allotting M.R. commodities. Regarding the appointment of respondent No.7 as an M.R. dealer it has been submitted that the said appointment is illegal since it was not done in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Bikash Kumar Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 submitted that the power-of-attorney which has been relied on by the petitioner is not genuine and was the subject-matter of certain proceedings.