ANIL KUMAR SHAW Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two mandamus-appeals were heard together as the questions involved herein are to some extent interlinked.

(2.) A.P.O.T. No. 7 of 2007 is at the instance of a writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as Anil) and is directed against order dated 19th December, 2006 passed by Patherya, J. thereby dismissed the writ application filed by Anil praying for cancellation of the Kerosene Oil Dealership Licence issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 (hereinafter called Madhusudhan). The other appeal being A.P.O.T. No. 36 of 2007 is at the behest of the State of West Bengal and other officials thereof and is preferred against the order dated November 30, 2006 passed by Maharaj Sinha, J. in G.A. No. 2923 of 2006 as well as an earlier order dated 14th July, 2006 passed by His Lordship disposing of a writ application filed by Madhusudhan thereby praying for direction upon the State Government to appoint him in the vacancy of the selfsame Kerosene Oil Dealership over which Anil also put forward his claim. The following facts are not in dispute :

(3.) As indicated earlier, both the previously mentioned appeals were heard together and for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, we directed the learned advocate for the State to produce before us the original records relating to the vacancy in question. Accordingly, the original records were placed before us. On March 9, 2007, when the hearing of the appeals was concluded and we were about to deliver the judgment, Mr. Behani, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of Madhusudhan submitted before us that he was not prepared for hearing of the appeal but was under the impression that the stay application in connection with the appeal would be heard. In view of such submission, we had adjourned the matters for a week to enable Mr. Behani to prepare himself for hearing of the appeals after giving him opportunity of inspecting the original records produced by the respondents.