FPS licence termination is valid where misrepresentation of the godown plot and use of barga land are established.

The petitioner was selected pursuant to a vacancy notification for appointment as a fair price shop (“FPS”) dealer under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, and was granted FPS licence no. 32941000051 for premises at Madhya Hudumdanga, Cooch Behar.

A rival candidate challenged the allotment, alleging that although the petitioner had represented that the godown stood on L.R. Plot No. 370, classified as Bastu land, the actual godown and FPS business were situated on Plot No. 371, recorded as Barga land.

Pursuant to an earlier order of the High Court dated 14 November 2024 directing a site inspection, the BLLRO conducted an enquiry and reported that the godown was situated on Plot No. 371 and that Giyasuddin Md. was recorded as its bargadar.

The Sub-Divisional Controller initially suspended the licence and tagged the FPS with the nearest shop, and thereafter terminated the licence on the ground of furnishing false information regarding the plot number and nature of the land, relying on clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notification.

The petitioner’s statutory appeal and second appeal were dismissed.

Whether the authorities were entitled to initiate proceedings and terminate the petitioner’s FPS licence after an earlier verification and allotment, or whether such action amounted to an impermissible review of their own decision.

Whether non-supply of the BLLRO’s enquiry report violated the principles of natural justice.

Whether the finding that the FPS godown was situated on Plot No. 371, a Barga land, rather than Plot No. 370, was liable to be interfered with in judicial review.

Whether the use of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 for suspension and the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024 for termination rendered the termination legally invalid.

Whether the petitioner’s licence was validly terminated for suppression or misrepresentation of material facts under clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notification.

The Court applied the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013 and the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024, including the second-appeal mechanism under clause 57(2) of the 2024 Order.

The Court relied on clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notification, under which suppression of facts or furnishing incorrect material information constituted a ground for disqualification, rejection of the application, and appropriate legal action.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and the settled limitation on judicial review whereby the High Court does not ordinarily re-appreciate disputed factual findings unless the decision is perverse, unsupported by evidence, or procedurally unfair.

It also recognised that an action taken pursuant to a binding or unchallenged judicial direction cannot be characterised merely as an administrative review of the original allotment.

The Court held that the proceedings were initiated pursuant to the co-ordinate Bench’s order directing a fresh site enquiry, which had been accepted and not challenged by the petitioner; consequently, the petitioner could not contend that the authorities had impermissibly reviewed their earlier allotment.

Although the petitioner alleged that the BLLRO report had not been supplied, she had admitted before the second appellate authority that the business was being conducted from Plot No. 371, albeit allegedly by mistake. That admission, together with the uncontroverted finding that Plot No. 371 was Barga land and not the Bastu land required under the vacancy notification, materially established the misrepresentation and rendered the objection concerning non-supply of the report insufficient.

The petitioner had also received notice, an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, and personal hearings before termination and in the appellate proceedings; therefore, there was no violation of natural justice.

Since the factual findings were supported by the enquiry materials and were not shown to be perverse, the Court declined to interfere under Article 226.

Finally, the Court found no legal infirmity in suspending the licence under the 2013 regime and terminating it after the 2024 Order had come into force, particularly because the termination independently rested on clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notification.

The respondents were directed to publish a fresh notice for filling the vacancy within four weeks, unless already notified, and to permit the petitioner to participate in that process.

The termination was not to be treated as a disqualification from participating in the fresh selection, particularly in view of the petitioner’s assertion that the incorrect identification of Plot No. 370 was a mistake.