An un-re-notified FPS vacancy warrants consideration of a pending compassionate dealership claim.

The petitioner’s father was a Fair Price Shop (“FPS”) dealer under the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 (“Control Order 2013”). His licence had been terminated, which he challenged in WPA 23311 of 2023. During the pendency of that writ petition, he died on 21 January 2025, and his legal heirs were substituted as petitioners

The petitioner’s mother applied on 21 April 2025 for grant of the FPS licence on compassionate grounds under Clause 20(ii) of the Control Order 2013. The application was not processed because of the pending litigation, as communicated by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, on 24 April 2025

Although the matter was heard and judgment was reserved on 6 May 2026, she died on 8 May 2026

By judgment dated 20 May 2026, the interlocutory application was allowed and the authorities were directed to consider her application; the main writ petition was dismissed as infructuous

Thereafter, the petitioner applied on 25 June 2026 for grant of the FPS licence on compassionate grounds, enclosing no-objection certificates from the other legal heirs. He submitted a further representation dated 20 August 2026 before the respondent authorities, but it remained undecided

Whether the respondent authorities were required to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20 August 2026 concerning appointment as an FPS dealer on compassionate grounds, particularly when the vacancy had not been re-notified?

Whether the Court could direct such consideration without adjudicating upon the petitioner’s substantive eligibility or entitlement to compassionate appointment?

The Court applied Clause 20(ii) of the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, which provides the framework for seeking grant of an FPS licence on compassionate grounds

It also proceeded on the principle that a pending statutory representation must be considered within the applicable statutory period and by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing

The Court further recognised that, where the relevant vacancy has not been re-notified and no third-party right has accrued, consideration of a pending compassionate appointment claim may be directed, subject to verification of eligibility, production and consideration of no-objection certificates from other legal heirs, and compliance with the governing Control Order

The Court found a prima facie case warranting limited judicial intervention because the petitioner’s representation dated 20 August 2026 remained pending, the vacancy arising from termination of the original dealer’s licence had not been re-notified, and no third-party right had been created

In light of the State’s submission that the claim could be considered in accordance with law, the Court held that administrative inaction should not prevent consideration of the petitioner’s application.

However, the Court expressly refrained from deciding whether the petitioner was substantively entitled to compassionate appointment. It left open the questions of eligibility, the validity and effect of the no-objection certificates, and compliance with the Control Order 2013 for independent determination by respondent no. 2

The decision was to be communicated within one week thereafter

Respondent no. 2 was specifically directed to consider the no-objection certificates furnished by the other legal heirs during the hearing

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the claim, and all issues relating to eligibility and entitlement remained open