Form No. J (2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas F.M.A. 1271 of 2025 IA NO: CAN/1/2025 Narayan Chandra Gorai vs. The State of West Bengal & ors. For the Appellant : Mr. Syed Julfikiar Ali Advocate For the Private Respondent : Ms. Nibedita Pal, Advocate Ms. Sonam Ray, Advocate Ms. N. Khatoon, Advocate Heard & Judgment on : 11.08. 2025 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:- 1. Appeal is directed against an order dated April 4, 2025 passed in W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 and W.P.A.7138 of 2025. 2. Appeal is at the behest of the writ petitioner in W.P.A.6527 of 2014. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner of W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 is referred to as the appellant. There is a second writ petition being W.P.A. 7138 of 2025. For the sake of convenience, the writ petitioner therein is 2 referred to as a private respondent for the purpose of decision in the present appeal. 3. Appellant and the private respondent are contesting with regard to a licence for a public distribution system for a particular area. Appellant filed writ petition being W.P.A.6527 of 2014. Such writ petition is still pending. Private respondent filed W.P.A. 7138 of 2025 and the same is also pending. 4. Both the writ petitions alongwith connected applications therein were taken up for hearing by the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order dated April 4, 2025, which is interim in nature, learned Single Judge permitted the respondent to continue with the licence for the public distribution system. 5. It transpires from the records that, respondent was not a party in W.P.A.6527 of 2014. Respondent applied in W.P.A.6527 of 2014 to be added as a party respondent which was allowed by the learned Single by an order dated November 18, 2024. 6. Appellant being aggrieved by such order dated November 18, 2024 passed in W.P.A.6527 of 2014 adding the private respondent as a party to the writ petition, appellant preferred an appeal being M.A.T. 2198 of 2024. In such appeal, prima facie, finding was returned by the coordinate Bench on March 19, 2025 to the effect that, the respondent was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the W.P.A. 6527 of 2014. 3 However, the order dated November 18, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 adding the respondent as a party respondent in such writ petition was not set aside by the Division Bench. M.A.T. 2198 of 2024 is still pending. 7. As on date, the order dated November 18, 2024 adding the respondent as a party respondent in W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 is surviving. 8. Apparently, learned Single Judge, was hearing the two writ petitions being W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 of the appellant and W.P.A. 7138 of 2025 of the respondent analogously. W.P.A. 7138 of 2025 of the respondent is directed against an order cancelling the allotment of the licence issued his favour. 9. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge, proceeded to direct the State to restore the licence of the respondent for a period of eight (8) weeks so that the respondent may be allowed to carry on business. Learned Single Judge also held that, the interim order will be subject to the final result in the two writ petitions. 10. Court is informed that, the interim order dated April 4, 2025 was extended from time to time and is presently subsisting. 11. In view of the fact that, the appellant and the private respondent are both aspiring for the same licence and that two writ petitions are pending consideration on such issue, we do not find that any compelling 4 case was made out by the respondent in the appeal to obtain the interim order without both the writ petitions being heard and finally decided. 12. Significantly, appellant, obtained an interim order in W.P.A.6527 of 2014. It is claimed that, such interim order is no longer subsisting. Be that as it may, it is the respondent herein, who applied for being added a party respondent in such writ petition of 2014 and got himself added therein. The respondent herein, therefore, cannot be heard to say that he is not bound by the directions passed in W.P.A. 6527 of 2014. The order adding the respondent herein as a party respondent to W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 is yet to be finally set aside by the Appeal Court. Therefore, in the interregnum, the respondent herein is to be treated as bound by the directions in W.P.A. 6527 of 2014 in which, an interim order was initially passed. 13. There is chequered history with regard to the licence concerned. There are rival claims to such licence. Without adjudicating upon the rival claims between the parties, it would be inappropriate to grant the licence to one of the rival claimants as an interim measure. Public interest is not setting affected since, the public distribution system can be taken care of by other licence holders. 14. In our view, neither a prima facie case stood made out nor was the balance of convenience and inconvenience in favour of the respondent in obtaining the interim order impugned before us. 5 15. In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated April 4, 2025 and the consequential extension thereto. 16. We clarify that, we did not pronounce on the merits of the rival claims of the private parties. The learned Single Judge is at liberty to decide on the merits the two writ petitions and connected applications therein being uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us in this appeal. 17. F.M.A. 1271 of 2025 alongwith connected application are disposed of without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 18. I agree. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.) CHC