RAHILA PARVIN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS

Form No.J(2)

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 1488 of 2026
Rahila Parvin
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the petitioner : Mr. Nabankur Paul
Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul
Mr. Badhisatya Ghosh

For the State : Ms. Supriya Singh
Mr. Alok Sah

Heard on : 01.09.2026

Judgment on : 01.09.2026

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the
st
order dated 1 July, 2026 passed by the Director, District
Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Food and Supply
Department, Govt. of West Bengal as a second appellate authority
from an order passed by the District Controller of Food and
Supplies, Cooch Behar whereby the termination of fair price shop
license issued in favour of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional
Controller of Food and Supply, Mekhliganj and the order passed by
the Director of Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar was upheld.

2
WPA 1488 of 2026
2. Records would reveal that the petitioner, wife of Salim Malik Sarkar
had participated in a selection process pursuant to a notice of
inviting vacancy ID 202200217901 issued by the Department of
Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal for filling up the
vacancy of FPS dealership under the West Bengal Public
Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, (in
short, the “WBPDS (M & C) Control Order”), at Village – Madhya
Hudumdange, near Hudum Danga A.P. School, G.P. – Dewanganj,
Post Office – Fatehmamud, Police Station – Haldibari, District –
Coochbehar, PIN – 735122.

3. Records would further reveal that the petitioner had become
successful and was accordingly appointed as a dealer in respect of
the FPS being license no. 32941000051 bearing FPS Code
th
WB0329410279 dated 7 August, 2023 against the aforesaid
vacancy ID. Upon obtaining such license, the petitioner had started
running her FPS business. Records would also reveal that one
Umar Faruk Sarkar, challenging the allotment of dealership in
favour of the petitioner, had filed a writ petition which was
registered as WPA No. 1917 of 2023, on the ground that the
petitioner had obtained the said allotment by misrepresentation of
fact. According to the said Umar Faruk Sarkar though the petitioner
claimed in her application that she was in possession of a land at
Mouza No. 12, Madhya Hudumdanga J.L. No. 17. Khaian No. 320,
Dag No. 370, measuring an area of 4 decimals out of 7 decimals,

3
WPA 1488 of 2026
classified as Bastu, however, no godown was constructed on the
said plot of land but the godown was constructed on plot no. 371
which happens to be a land classified as Barga land and that, the
business was being carried on from the said plot without any
conversion. It is in the peculiar facts that a co-ordinate Bench of
th
this Court by a judgment and order dated 14 November, 2024 had
directed the Sub Divisional Controller, the respondent no. 8 therein
to conduct an enquiry by visiting Mouza- Madhya Hudumdanga, JL
No.- 017, Khatian No. 320, G.P. – Dewanganj, Block – Haldibari,
Police Station – Mekhliganj, and ascertain as to whether at L.R. Plot
No. 370, L.R Khatian No. – 320, there exists any shop room or it is
vacant land. Such inspection was directed to be carried out upon
notice to the writ petitioner and respondent no. 10 and their
learned Advocates. The identification of the land in question was
directed to be made by the staff by the BLLRO or by any registered
surveyor competent to do such work.
4. In terms of the aforesaid direction passed by the co-ordinate Bench
an enquiry was initiated and the petitioner was notified with
th
regards to the same by communication dated 6 January, 2026
th
intimating therein that on 10 January, 2025 such enquiry would
th
be conducted. Subsequently, by a further notice dated 14
January, 2025 a personal hearing was also afforded to the
th
petitioner. Following the same an order was passed on 27
January, 2025 by the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies,

4
WPA 1488 of 2026
Mekhliganj, inter alia, recording therein that the field enquiry report
th
had been submitted by the BLLRO, Haldibari on 13 January, 2025
wherein it had been mentioned that the godown in question is
situated at LR Plot no. 371 of Mouza- Madhya Hudumdanga, JL No.
17 and that the same is recorded as Barga land wherein one
Giyasuddin Md., is shown bargadar. The order further records after
the field enquiry an opportunity was provided for personal hearing
th
to the petitioner on 16 January, 2025. The Sub Divisional
Controller based on the aforesaid had though prima facie, held that
the petitioner had obtained the license no. 32941000051 being FPS
Code no. WB0329410279 by keeping the department totally in dark
and providing of wrong information in the application form.
Accordingly, considering the gravity and for smooth running of the
Public Distribution System in exercise of powers conferred under
the WBPDS (M & C) Control Order, the petitioner’s license for the
FPS was suspended with immediate effect in public interest and the
concerned license was tagged with the nearest FPS.
5. Following the aforesaid after hearing the petitioner by an order
th
dated 10 September, 2025, the petitioner’s license was ultimately
terminated, having regard to clause 15(iv) of the vacancy
th
notification bearing Memo No. 263/SCF&S/MKG/22 dated 8
August, 2022, on the ground of providing false plot information of
the godown and the character of land.

5
WPA 1488 of 2026
6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Office
of the District Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Cooch
th
Behar. By an order dated 9 February, 2026 the said appeal did not
find favour, inter alia , on the ground that the land shown by the
petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory requirement being a bastu
land as per vacancy notice, and incorrect information having been
furnished by her regarding the plot number of the godown,
amounting to misrepresentation of material facts. Accordingly, the
appeal was found devoid of merit.
7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a second appeal under
clause 57(2) of the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System
(Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024 before the Director, District
Distribution, Procurement and Supply. The said appeal also came
st
to be rejected by an order dated 1 April, 2026. In course of hearing
of such appeal as is recorded in the order, the petitioner had
claimed that she committed a mistake and was otherwise innocent.
The Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply,
st
however, by the aforesaid order dated 1 April, 2026 did not
interfere with the order impugned therein and accordingly, rejected
the appeal.
8. Mr. Paul, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would
submit that the enquiry conducted by the Office of the BLLRO was
not supplied to the petitioner and he relied on a report prepared by
a surveyor to demonstrate that the petitioner was, in fact, carrying

6
WPA 1488 of 2026
on business at plot no. 370. He further submitted that initially
when the application was allowed, the same was allowed on the
basis of verification conducted by the authorities and in the
peculiar facts, the authorities could not have reviewed their own
order. This apart, he also raises an issue that the suspension order
was issued by powers conferred under the WBPDS (M&C) Control
Order 2013 whereas the order of termination was passed under the
WBPDS (M&C) Order 2024.
9. Ms. Singh, learned Advocate representing the State would, however,
submit that the petitioner having acknowledged that she had
committed a mistake in identifying the property, it is too late in the
day for the petitioner to rely on the surveyor’s report to hold out she
was carrying on the business of FPS at plot no. 370. According to
her, the license was obtained by suppression. In terms of the
th
conditions noted in the FPS vacancy notice dated 8 August, 2022
that the action was taken. In this context, she draws the attention
of this Court to clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notice which provides
that any suppression of fact would be considered a good and
justifiable reason for disqualification for a candidate or rejection of
application and taking appropriate legal action. As such there is no
irregularity in the order, no interference is called for.

10. Having heard the learned Advocates representing the respective
parties, I find that although Mr. Paul, learned Advocate
representing the petitioner would submit that the respondents

7
WPA 1488 of 2026
ought not have reviewed their own action, it is not in dispute that
th
the judgment and order dated 14 November, 2024 was accepted
by the parties. Such order was not challenged by the petitioner. The
th
initiation of proceedings as would appear from the notice dated 8
January, 2025 issued by the Sub Divisional Controller was based
on the above order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
Having regard thereto, in my view, the objection raised by the
petitioner that the authorities earlier having themselves conducted
an inquiry before the allotment ought not have reviewed such
action, cannot be sustained. On the aspect of non-supply of the
inquiry report to the petitioner conducted by the BLLRO, I find that
the petitioner herself has admitted before the second appellate
authority that the petitioner had been carrying on the FPS business
from plot no. 371 on the basis of a genuine mistake. Since, the
petitioner herself has admitted that she was carrying on business
from plot no. 371, in my view, it is too late in the day for the
petitioner to once again base her case on the non-supply of the
inspection report prepared by the concerned BLLRO especially
when there is no dispute as regards the petitioner having
acknowledged that she had been conducting business from plot no.
371, though by mistake. It is also not in dispute, at least, the
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the plot no. 371 is
not a barga land. It has been conclusively established that plot no.
371 is a barga land and the recorded bargadar is Giyasuddin Md.

8
WPA 1488 of 2026
11. I also find that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of
hearing. The petitioner’s license was not terminated without
affording opportunity of hearing. It is not a case of violation of
principles of natural justice. The order passed by the respondents
does not appear to be perverse as well as, there is sufficient
evidence to support the order. This apart, the petitioner has availed
the second appellate remedy by filing a second appeal. In the
peculiar facts, it is well settled that this Court cannot, in exercise of
power of judicial review enter into any factual issue. On such
ground the order cannot be faulted. The only other issue raised by
the petitioner is with regard to the petitioner being suspended in
terms of WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2013 and the termination of
the license was effected by the WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2024.
On this aspect, I find that when the direction to conduct the
enquiry by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was passed, the
WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2024 had already been given effect,
and as such, I find no irregularity for the action taken by the
respondents in terminating the licence. Further termination was
th
effected for violation of Clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notice dated 8
August, 2022. As such, there is no irregularity in the action.
12. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly,
dismissed without any order as to costs.
13. The respondents are, however, directed to publish a notice to fill
up the vacancy within four weeks, in accordance with law unless,

9
WPA 1488 of 2026
the same has already been notified. Needless to note that the
petitioner must be given an opportunity to participate in such
vacancy notice and the termination of the license should not be
construed as a disqualification for the petitioner to participate in
process, since the petitioner has stated that she may have
committed a mistake in identifying plot no. 370.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite
formalities.

.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J )
S.Seal
A.R.C.R