NEMAI ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in the present writ petition are a partnership firm and one of its partners. This firm, comprising of three partners of which the petitioner no. 2 is one, was appointed as a distributor under the West Bengal Public distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2003 (the '2003 Order' in short ). The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is over certain penal steps taken against the petitioners on the allegation of violation of various provisions of the 2003 Order. There are allegations against the partners of the petitioner no. 1 and certain other individuals of commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code as well, to which I shall refer to in the later part of this judgment. The specific acts which are complained against by the petitioners in this writ petition are sealing of their godown by the civil supplies authorities, seizure of several trucks by which certain quantities of rice and wheat were being transported on their behalf, and prayer has been made for an order for quashing a First Information Report (F. I. R.) lodged by one Madan Mohan Mondal, assistant controller of food and supplies department, Purulia against three persons connected with the petitioner no. 1 and seven other persons. The said officer had lodged a written complaint with the officer-in-charge, Purulia Town Police Station alleging certain breaches of the 2003 Order, and this written complaint was recorded as an F. I. R. On the aspect of sealing of their godown, however, the petitioners have not pressed their case in course of hearing as it was submitted on their behalf that the authorities had permitted the petitioners to operate their godown after the initial act of sealing.

(2.) THIS writ petition is contested by the police authorities and the food and supplies department by filing independent affidavits-in-opposition. They have been represented by their learned Advocates, Mr. Milan Bhattacharya and Mr. Indrajit Sarkar. Preliminary objection had been taken in this matter as regards the maintainability of the present writ petition on three counts by Mr. Bhattacharya. The first ground on which he seeks dismissal of the writ petition is existence of alternative remedy. At the initial stage objection was taken by Mr. Bhattacharya that this Bench does not have the determination to hear out this matter as the subject of the present writ petition does not come within the scope of business allocated to this Bench by His Lordship The Hon'ble Chief Justice. However, he did not to press this objection during the later stage of this proceeding. The other ground on which preliminary objection was taken was that the writ petition had not been filed by all the partners and it was contended that the firm in question was an unregistered firm, and hence all the partners of the firm should have joined as petitioners to maintain this writ petition.

(3.) BEFORE I deal with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, I would like to narrate certain facts which are relevant and material for effective determination of the controversy involved in this writ petition. The petitioner no. 1, Nemai Industries was granted a license as a 'distributor' under the provisions of the 2003 Order on 19th March, 2007. I find from the license, a copy of which has been made annexure 'p1' to the writ petition that the same has been issued in favour of the petitioner no. 1, in its trade name, and the names of three individuals including that of the petitioner no. 2 has been recorded in the license as the partners thereof. The dispute in the present proceeding realtes to two delivery orders issued in favour of the petitioners by the authorities for lifting nine hundred ninety four quintals of 'b. P. L. rice' implying rice meant for below poverty line consumers, and four hundred and sixty quintals of 'a. P. L. Wheat', implying wheat meant for consumers above the poverty line. These commodities were to be lifted from the government godown at Chharra in the district of Purulia and taken to the petitioners' godown at Sirkabad also in the same district. The petitioners claim to have had engaged one Sanjay Dey, also of Purulia Town for lifting these commodities from the government godown and transporting the same to the petitioners' godown. The case of the petitioners is that said Sanjay De had lifted a part of the commodities and loaded them on five trucks on 3rd March 2008 for this purpose. The trucks, however, did not reach the destination within the scheduled time and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that upon making enquiry they found that the drivers of two trucks upon reaching Purulia town refused to proceed to Sirkabad, which is alleged to be an insurgent infested area. Such situation, according to the petitioners prompted the transporter to try for alternative arrangement for transportation and he could arrange for one truck only which was reloaded, and the commodities loaded in another truck were being unloaded for storage in the custody of the transporter. At that point of time, the officers from the district enforcement branch of Police appears to have had seized all the trucks as also the unloaded commodities, and detained some of the drivers and helpers of these trucks as well as said Sanjay De. Thereafter, the officer of the department of food and supplies visited the Purulia Town Police station and made a complaint to the Officer-in-charge of the said police station, which was recorded as a First Information Report. The relevant portion of the first Information Report is reproduced below: