25.03.2025 Sl. No.10 Ct. No.24 S.A. WPA 21009 of 2023 Monaim Biswas -vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Robiul Islam Mr. Raju Mondal Mr. Masooq Rahman …for the petitioner Mr. Supratim Dhar Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee …for the State SCFS, Domkal issued a vacancy notification being Memo No.1061 dated 19.10.2022 for FPS licence in respect of vacancy location Ganra Baria, Ganra Baria More. The petitioner applied for the licence by making specific application. After few days, the concerned SCFS again issued a notification being Memo No.1156 dated 21.11.2022 for FPS licence for the location Ganra Baria, nearby Ganra Baria Jamme Masjid. On the basis of the application of the petitioner, his proposed shop-cum-godown was inspected but ultimately his candidature was rejected on the ground that his proposed shop-cum-godown is situated under the vacancy Memo No.1156 dated 21.11.2022. The petitioner challenged the act and action of the authority for issuance licence in favour of respondent no.7. It is the contention of the learned 2 counsel for the petitioner that the proposed shop- cum-godown of the petitioner is situated nearer than the proposed shop-cum-godown of the respondent no.7 from Ganra Baria More. He submits that the concerned authority only in terms of nepotism has allowed the candidature of respondent no.7 though his godown is situated far from the central location in terms of vacancy location No.1061 dated 19.10.2022. It is further argued that the concerned authority only to facilitate the respondent no.7 has granted the licence. The State respondent submits a report in the form of an affidavit, against the writ petitioner along with the said report, they have placed the enquiry report of the present petitioner as well as the enquiry report of private respondent no.7. Mr. Amritalal Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing for the State has placed reliance upon the enquiry report in connection with the petitioner wherein the enquiry officer has mentioned that the distance of the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner from the central location is 3100 metre while the distance of proposed shop-cum-godown of private respondent from central location is 130 metre. It is the further contention of Mr. Chatterjee that the GPS location of proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner as well as the private respondent has been 3 clearly depicted in the report wherefrom it would be revealed that the distances as calculated by the inspection team is correct. He further submits that as the proposed shop-cum-godown of the private respondent is nearer to the proposed shop-cum- godown of the petitioner and for other reasons the private respondent appears to be a suitable candidate. So the licence is granted in his favour. One exception was placed by the petitioner against the report contending inter alia that the proposed shop-cum-godown of the private respondent is about 1.7 km away from Ganra Baria More but petitioner’s shop-cum-godown is about only 70 metre away from Ganra Baria More. He placed Google Map showing the location. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an independent authority may be directed to cause an enquiry regarding the distance of the shop-cum-godown of the petitioner and the private respondent from the central location. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it appears that only disputes appeared before this Court regarding the fixing of central location by the authority in respect of vacancy ID.202200223517. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the Ganra Baria More is taken to be the central location of the said vacancy, the proposed shop-cum-godown of 4 the petitioner is nearer than the private respondent. It is the contention of the respondent authority that the central location i.e. the Ganra Baria More has been clearly depicted by Google Map appended with this report. It appears that the petitioner also placed a Google Map along with the exception. Vacancy ID.202200223517 has a vacancy location of Ganra Baria near Ganra Baria More. The authority concerned has declared the vacancy and they have the authority to decide who is the eligible candidate. In deciding such eligibility, they have made an enquiry. By such enquiry it appears to them that the distance of the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner is 3100 metre from the central location. The said view of the authority was challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The authority has issued the vacancy notification which is within their domain. There may be a different place call Ganra Baria More, but it is the domain of the State respondent who should fix the central location for a particular vacancy. This domain of the authority cannot be called into question before a Writ Court because it is a policy decision of the Government. The Government decision cannot be under a question before a Writ Court. Moreover, it further appears that on the other counts of eligibility as appearing in the respective inspection report of the 5 authority that the area of proposed godown of the petitioner is 605 sq. ft. while the proposed area of godown of the private respondent is 608 sq. ft. I make it clear that the petitioner has challenged the act and action of the respondent authority in selection of respondent no.7 on several grounds. He has also challenged that the candidature of the private respondent no.7 cannot be considered regarding the other points as mentioned in the writ petition, but those allegations though pleaded but not raised before this Writ Court. Furthermore, I make it clear that the authority concerned is the appropriate specialised department to consider the suitability of applicants. The authority concerned has considered the suitability of the applicants and decided that the private respondent no.7 is the most suitable candidate. They have placed the report wherefrom it appears that though there exist very few difference regarding area of godown and shoproom of petitioner and private respondent, but distance of proposed shop-cum-godown of the private respondent is nearer to the proposed shop-cum- godown of the petitioner from the central location. In support of their contention respondent authority placed a copy of Google Map. In such Google Map they have depicted the distance from 6 central location to the proposed shop-cum-godown of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised the question of correctness of the Google Map annexed to the report but I find no materials to his objection. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also considered the Google Map as well as the mark of latitude and longitude mentioned in the reports, I find no justification to raise the question about the action of the respondent authority. Respondent authority have fix a location to be Ganra Baria More, which may not be called in such name, but for that reason it cannot be said that respondent authority has acted arbitrarily. I also find no materials regarding alleged biasness by State respondent. Under the above observation, I find no justification to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is disposed of as devoid of merit. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings. (Subhendu Samanta, J.)