JAI NARAYAN PRADHAN Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner, an applicant for grant of M.R. Dealership for the Mirick area, in the District of Darjeeling has challenged memo dated 18th June, 2003 being Annexure "P-7" by which the concerned State respondent has appointed the private respondent No.7 as the Dealer.

(2.) Mr. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has taken a preliminary objection as to the right of the writ petitioner to challenge the appointment of his client on the ground that the writ petitioner having no requisite qualification for the said dealership is not entitled to challenge the appointment.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the aforesaid preliminary objection and has contended that it would appear from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondent that while appointing the private respondent No.7, the relevant Control Order was not adhered to and such appointment was made after consultation with the Chairman, Gorkha Hill Council, Darjeeling. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, neither the Chairman, nor the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council, has any right to be consulted while giving appointment of an M.R. Dealer. Mr. Bhattacharya submits that from the aforesaid affidavit affirmed by the State, it is clear that the appointment was illegal and thus on that ground alone, the order of appointment in favour of private respondent No.7 should be quashed. Mr. Bhattacharya contends that once the High Court finds that the order impugned is illegal, the question of locus standi is immaterial. In other words, Mr. Bhattacharya contends that even if it appears that ultimately this Court cannot grant relief to the petitioner as he had no requisite qualification, in such a case, this Court should set aside the order impugned and direct the State respondent to make fresh appointment among other eligible candidates. In support of such proposition of law, Mr. Bhattacharya relies upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court: Coca-Cola Export Corporation vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr., reported in 1998(4) SCC 166 paragraphs 15 and 16; K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan & Anr., reported in 1999(4) SCC 526; M.S. Jayarajvs. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala & Ors. reported in 2000(7) SCC 552 paragraph 14; Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram ChanderRai & Ors., reported In 2003(6) SCC 675; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal & Anr. vs. B. D. Agarwal & Ors. 2003(6) SCC 230.