GOUR CHANDRA GORAI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are concerned with curtailing of the consumers tagged with the dealerships of the petitioners, who hold licences for such dealerships and at present operate under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control Order), 2013 in certain selected areas comprised within 23 Blocks in three districts of West Bengal, being West Midnapore, Purulia and Bankura. The petitioners' fair price shops are located within the aforesaid 23 Blocks, which have been referred to in different administrative documents as Left Wing Extremist (LWE) affected areas as also Jangal Mahal. The aforesaid Control Order was promulgated by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Sec. 3 by the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution (Department of Food & Public Distribution) Order No. G.S.R. 630C dated 31st Aug., 2001.

(2.) The first writ petition among the present set, W.P. 6252 (W) of 2013, was instituted by nine dealers from Midnapore Sadar Sub-Division in the district of West Midnapore questioning certain steps initiated by the District Controller to engage Self-Help Groups (SHGs) to operate "additional outlets" for supply of public distribution commodities. Petitioners in this petition have urged that in terms of instruction of the authorities, they had established certain additional outlets away from their fair price shops to be nearer to some of the beneficiaries attached to their dealerships and the authorities were contemplating handing over these outlets to the SHGs. The 2013 Control Order had not become operational at that point of time. In W.P. 31930(W) of 2013, all but one of these nine petitioners (in W.P. 6252 (W) of 2013) approached this Court afresh, questioning fresh steps taken by the authorities in respect of eight additional outlets, for which vacancy notice was issued on 23rd Sept. 2013 by the sub-Divisional Controller of Midnapore Sadar. In their earlier writ petition, an order of status quo was passed on 4th March 2013 as regards supply of ration articles to the petitioners, and the order of status quo was prevailing when the vacancy notice was issued. One of the grounds taken in W.P. 31930(W) of 2013 is that the steps taken for declaration of vacancy were in breach of the order of status quo. Otherwise, these petitions are founded on common grounds and have been heard analogously.

(3.) In W.P. 31935(W) of 2013 the petitioners are four dealers under police station Belpahari, whereas in W.P. 32041 (W) of 2013 two existing dealers from Binpur Block-I are the writ petitioners. W.P. 32042 (W) of 2013 has also been brought by two dealers of Binpur-I Block, all being within the same district, being West Midnapore. All these petitioners question vacancy notifications issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Jhargram on 23rd Sept. 2013. W.P. 33434 (W) of 2013 the petitioner is a dealer from the district of Bankura and his outlet is within the Simlipal Block of the same district. The writ petitioner in W.P. 33432 (W) of 2013 is a dealer from Bagmundi, Purulia and questions the vacancy notice of 21st Sept. 2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller of the concerned Block. The writ petitioner in W.P. 33436 of 2013 is from Bankura district having his fair price shop in Sarenga Block, and he challenges the legality of a vacancy notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Khatra on 23rd Sept. 2013. In W.P. 33437 (W) of 2013, the petitioner's dealership is in Raipur Block, also from the district of Bankura. In W.P. 33491(W) of 2013, the sole writ petitioner operates his dealership business from Barabazar in Purulia Sadar. Similar is the case of the writ petitioner in W.P. 33492(W) of 2013, who operates his dealership business also from Barabazar under Purulia Sadar sub-Division. The petitioner in W.P. 33900(W) of 2013 operates similar fair price shop from Bagmundi under Purulia Sadar Sub-Division. The petitioners from Purulia district have assailed the legality of a vacancy notice dated 21st Sept. 2013. All these petitioners were asked to set up additional outlets at a place different from their subsisting outlets in respect of some of their tagged consumers at the instance of the district authorities to facilitate ease in lifting of ration articles by the beneficiaries of different Public Distribution Schemes from locations closer to their residences. The vacancy notices have been issued in respect of these outlets, seeking fresh appointment of dealers to cater the consumers who stood tagged to the petitioners' fair price shops. The petitioners have also challenged legalities of certain other ancillary steps taken by the State authorities for delinking certain consumers of the petitioners and tag them with the dealers to be appointed as per the fresh vacancy notices.