SHYAM SUNDAR MODAK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The only point raised in this appeal as to whether the Director, Food and Supplies extended the period for filing of application for grant of licence of wholesale dealer in sugar at Krishnagunj, Dist. Nadia and if so, whether he was competent to do so under the notification issued under the statute.

(2.) THE Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies Krishnagore issued a notice dated 26-4-94 inviting applications for issuing wholesale levy free Sugar dealers' licence in respect of the police stations including Krishnagunj fixing a target date in pursuance whereof the writ petitioner, along with others, applied in form A for grant of said licence for levy free sugar. THE respondent Nos. 5 and 6 also applied therefor after expiry of the date fixed in the notification. Subsequently at the request of Nadia Zilla Parishad the date was extended the case respondent No. 5 was recommended by the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge himself and he was granted licence. THE writ petitioner challenged the said order before the ld. trial Judge alleging that the selection was at the behest of the Hon'ble Minister-in-Charge after the time being illegally extended for making the application and prayed for issuing writs setting aside the order of appointment of respondent No. 5 as wholesale dealer of levy free sugar in area at Krishnagunj, Dist. Nadia.

(3.) IT has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the applications of respondents No. 5 and 6 were recommended by Nadia Zilla Parishad and the District Controller, Food and Supplies, Nadia extended the date up to 31-12-1994 on the request of Zilla Parishad, Nadia and subsequently notified by the Deputy Director, Food and Supply although they have no authority to do so and the Sub-Divisional Controller, F.S., Krishnanagore wrongly acted upon such recommendations. According to him, the order passed by the learned trial Judge directing the authorities to consider the case of respondents No. 5 and 6 is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be set aside.