LexSWAPAN KUMAR PAL versus ACHINTYA KUMAR NAYAK AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SW APAN KUMAR PAL --(---1 v. ACHINTYA KUMAR NA YAK AND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ' . 1 Constitution of India, I 950: y c Article 226-Modified Rationing dealership-Name of First respondent recommended by competent authority for grant of dealership-Grant thereof-Inte1ference by High Court under Article 226-Held: Not called for as he fuljilled the relevant criteria-Public Distribution System. D Administrative Law: Decision making process-Interference with-Scope of- )---- Discussed E The Selection process for the grant of MR dealership was conducted wherein both appellant and the First respondent filed their respective applications. The competent authority recommended the name of First respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Collector granted MR dealership to him. Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single F judge allowed the same. First respondent successfully appealed before the Division Bench of the High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Division 1- Bench committed a manifest error in reversing the judgment of the Single Judge insofar as it took into consideration irrelevant factors, G namely, educational qualifications of the candidates; and that the First respondent did not own a god own on the date of filing of the application which was the determinative factor for grant of the dealership and the t-, appellant fulfilled the said criteria and hence was entitled thereto. H 428 ,..t SW APAN KUMAR PAL v. ACHINTYA KUMAR 429 NA YAK ~-..,.. Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. Grant of MR dealership in the State of West Bengal is not governed by any statute or statutory rules. Appropriate Authority, however, have issued a notification on or about 21.11.2000 pursuant whereto, both, the appellants and the first respondent, filed 1 their B applications. The appellant is owning a god own of which he had b~en in f . possession. His financial solvency was stated to be Rs. 50,000/- and ..,../ the trade proficiency and experience in running the business for $bout five years. First Respondent had, however, in his application stated that he had been in possession of a godown which had been donated to him c by his uncle. [Para 9] [432-D, E] 2. The Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, upon taking . into consideration the relevant criteria for grant of MR dealership, made recommendations in favour of the first respondent. An enquiry thereto was also made. 'A spot visit was made by the competent authority. D -~ Qualifications and experiences of the respective candidates were taken into consideration ~d the first respondent was recommended by the Competent Authority on or about 26.2.2001. [Para 10] [432-F, G[ 3.1. The criteria which were relevant for grant of MR dealersflip, E were: financial solvency, possession of Godown and trade proficiency. It may be true that the candidates were not required to have ~my particular educational qualification. Workable knowledge was sufficient It, however, appears from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that the scheme in question was meant for the Educated Unemployed F -'! People. The Competent Authority, therefore, was to consider the respective cases of the parties upon application of the relevant criteria so far as the candidates are concerned. [Paras 13and14] (434-B, C, DJ 3.2. No statutory order or any notification operating in the fieJd G has been produced before this Court. Relevant criteria therefor, -~ however, can be ascertained from the form of the applications filed by the parties. The sites of the shop and the capacity of the godown as also a valid document for possession thereof were some of the relevant criteria besides trade proficiency and the period during which the H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A applicant was in business. Ownership of the godown was not an essential condition but the possession thereof was. [Paras 15and16] [434-E,F] 4.1. Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, misdirected himself B in posing a wrong question namely, ownership of the godown which was not of much relevance. [Para 17] [434-F, G] 4.2. The Division Bench of the High Court might have committed an error in taking into consideration the respective educational qualifications and might have also erred in taking into consideration a C subsequent event, namely execution of a deed of gift in fav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.