14.07.26 56 Ct. No.10 Sws.M WPA 8643 of 2025 Abdul Mannan vs. State of West Bengal& ORs. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee Mr. Badrul Karim Mr. Aritra Ghosh …for the petitioenr Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr.Adv., Ld. AGP Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee Mr. Jagannath Chatterjee ….for the State-respondents Syed E. Huda Sk. Aptabuddin Ms. Nabeela Akbar Ms. Saima Amin ….for the respondent No. 9 1. The petitioner in the present case challenges inter alia the grant of Fair Price Shop Licence to the private respondent and praying for consideration of the representation dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner. 2. The core issue is whether the private respondent possesses the requisite godown on land classified as ‘gudam’ as per the eligibility criteria for FPS Dealership at Dag No. 3222, J.L. No. 15, Khatian No. 4719, Mouza Sekhor, Block Goalpokhar-II. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the private respondent who has been granted the licence by the Food and Supply Department, does not possess the 2 required godown on vested land classified as “gudam” being Dag No. 3222. 4. It is further submitted that the ‘gudam’ has in fact been constructed as land classified as “VIT-II” bearing Dag No. 3213, J.L. No. 15, which does not satisfy the criteria for storage of food grains. 5. It is contended that despite the selection process been completed and the petitioner being recommended, the impugned order dated 19.05.2026 has been passed by granting licence to the private respondent. 6. The petitioner prays that the representation dated 24.02.2025 be considered after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there has been no misdeclaration or false statement made at the time of submitting the application for grant of licence. It is further submitted that the licence has been granted in accordance with the due process of law and the private respondent is continuing with a Fair Price Shop dealership in the interest of public. 8. The Learned Government Pleader appearing for the state respondent does not object to the 3 consideration of the representation dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner by the competent authority. 9. Having heard the parties upon perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds that a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner warranting consideration of the representation. 10. An independent enquiry is required to be conducted to ascertain the classification of the godown constructed by the private respondents. 11. The respondent No. 5 being the competent authority shall be at liberty to conduct an independent enquiry prior to arriving at a logical conclusion with regard to the grant of licence. 12. In view of the above the respondent No. 5 is directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 24.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order and pass a speaking reasoned order in accordance with law upon affording opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the private respondent. Such decision shall be 4 communicated to the respective parties within a week thereafter. 13. In the event the private respondent is found to have committed a fraud by misdeclaring the classification of the godown in the application, the respondent No. 5 shall be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law. 14. However, it is made clear that till the decision of the respondent No. 5 attains finality, the private respondent shall be permitted to continue to operate the FPS dealership business in the interest of the public at large, failing which the entire distribution system shall be adversely affected. 15. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. (Smita Das De, J.)