Pending Objection to Retail Dealership Must Be Decided by District Magistrate After Hearing Stakeholders.

The petitioner challenged the advertisement dated 18 July 2023 for a retail outlet dealership at a location in Hooghly, the cancellation of his candidature, and the allotment in favour of private respondent No. 14.

He alleged irregularities concerning the land proposed for the dealership, including successive lease and sale transactions involving plot No. 1514 and the later surrender of an earlier lease; he also contended that the land was classified as “Shali” and that no conversion documents had been produced.

The Oil Company submitted that the dealership had been granted after compliance with the applicable formalities, and produced documents showing that a Letter of Intent had been issued on 16 March 2024, a No Objection Certificate on 7 July 2026, and the relevant licences in August 2026.

The petitioner’s representation dated 24 July 2026 to the District Magistrate, objecting to the dealership and seeking withdrawal of the Letter of Intent and Letter of Appointment, remained pending.

Whether the petitioner’s pending representation concerning the grant of the retail outlet dealership should be considered and decided by the District Magistrate.

Whether the Court should determine the merits of the petitioner’s challenges to the advertisement, cancellation of his candidature, and allotment to respondent No. 14 in this proceeding.

The judgment identifies no specific statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis for its directions.

It applies the procedural principles that a pending representation raising objections should be considered through a reasoned and speaking order, after affording affected parties an opportunity of hearing, and that the competent authority must reach an independent decision in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the representation had remained pending despite the Oil Company’s submission that the dealership formalities had been completed and licences issued.

To balance the parties’ interests and secure consideration of the objections, it directed the District Magistrate to hear the petitioner, respondent No. 14, the Oil Company’s representative, and any other stakeholders, and to decide the representation by a reasoned order.

The Court expressly left the merits open, requiring the District Magistrate to decide independently and not be influenced by the Court’s observations.

The writ petition was disposed of without adjudication on the merits.

The Court also recorded that, as no affidavit in opposition had been called for, the writ petition’s allegations were deemed denied and not admitted.