A selected licensee is a necessary party before cancellation of the appointment in writ proceedings.

A fair price shop vacancy at Ranibandh, Bankura, was notified on 18 July 2021 under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2003. Smt. Soma Mahato applied for the dealership, and the authorities undertook spot verification and site enquiry. During the pendency of the selection process, the Control Order, 2013 came into force, replacing the 2003 Order, and the National Food Security Act, 2013 introduced reforms to the Targeted Public Distribution System

In 2015, pending vacancies and selection processes for fair price shops and modified rationing dealerships were cancelled pursuant to the implementation of the NFSA. Mahato challenged the cancellation and sought consideration of her earlier application. Although the authorities informed her that all vacancies had been cancelled, her writ proceedings remained pending

On 5 January 2022, fresh vacancies were notified under the Control Order, 2013. Badal Chandra Das applied, was selected, and was issued a fair price shop licence on 7 June 2024. While the writ petition was pending, Mahato was not impleaded as a party despite the subsequent notification and Das’s appointment

The learned Single Judge thereafter directed the authorities to grant Mahato a licence and cancelled Das’s licence without hearing him. Das and the State preferred separate appeals challenging that order on the grounds of violation of natural justice, non-joinder of a necessary party, and failure to consider the changed statutory framework and subsequent events

Whether Das, whose licence was cancelled and whose rights were directly affected, was a necessary and proper party to the writ petition, such that the order passed without impleading or hearing him violated the principles of natural justice?

Whether Mahato, as an applicant in an incomplete and subsequently cancelled selection process, possessed any vested or enforceable right to the dealership or to continuation of the earlier vacancy notification?

Whether the learned Single Judge was required to consider the subsequent statutory and factual developments, including the Control Order, 2013, the NFSA, the fresh vacancy notification, and Das’s appointment and licence?

Section 12(1) of the National Food Security Act, 2013 requires the Central and State Governments to progressively undertake reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System consistently with the Act

An applicant in an unfinalised selection process has no vested right to appointment or to continuation of a vacancy, and no person has a perpetual right to run a fair price shop; the court relied on Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P., (1981) 4 SCC 471

The doctrine of legitimate expectation requires fair consideration but cannot prevail over a lawful governmental policy or statutory mandate, as explained in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Gitashree Dutta (Dey), (2022) 19 SCC 388, the Court held that an applicant in an unfinalised selection process has no vested right to continuation of a vacancy recalled to implement the NFSA, and that there can be no estoppel against a statute

Under Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 130, a person whose rights are directly affected by an order is a necessary party, and an order materially affecting that person cannot ordinarily be passed behind his back

The Court also referred to Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, (2006) 8 SCC 487; Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab, (2014) 15 SCC 715; Kulwant Singh v. Daya Ram, (2015) 3 SCC 177; and Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 16 SCC 187, which reaffirm the requirement of impleading directly affected parties

The Court found that Das’s licence had been issued pursuant to a fresh vacancy notification under the Control Order, 2013 and that he was operating the dealership when the learned Single Judge cancelled his licence. Since the order directly prejudiced his existing legal and commercial rights, Das was both a necessary and proper party under the principle stated in Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia. His non-impleadment and lack of hearing rendered the order procedurally unsustainable

The Court further held that Mahato’s earlier participation, verification, or consideration did not create a vested right because the original selection process had not culminated in an appointment and the earlier vacancies had been cancelled in the context of implementing the NFSA and the Control Order, 2013

The learned Single Judge also failed to account for the changed legal regime, the fresh 2022 notification, and Das’s subsequent selection and licensing. These subsequent events were material and could not be ignored while deciding the writ petition

Mahato had no vested right to continuation of the earlier vacancy or to appointment merely because she had participated in an incomplete selection process.

The impugned order dated 20 August 2024 was set aside; MAT 2113 of 2024 and MAT 2197 of 2024 were allowed, WPA No. 431 of 2022 was dismissed, all connected applications were disposed of, and all interim orders were vacated