18.09.2025 SL No.1 Court No.24 Ali WPA 22329 of 2025 M/s. Shyam Salt Industries & Ors. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ram Anand Agarwal, Ms. Nibedita Pal, Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee, Ms. Sonam Ray …… for the petitioners. Ms. Sonal Sinha, Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee …. for the State. Mr. Probal Kr. Mujkherjee, Mr. Suhrid Sur, Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Mr. S. Ray, Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Ms. Sonia Das, …..for the Intervenor. 1. Petitioners are engaged in the business of salt and import common salt from outside State to process the same into Iodised Salt by mixing required quantity of iodine therein. 2. Initially, one Salt Importer Association, namely, New South Bengal Iodised Salt Importer Association approached this Court for extension of time for placement of indents from Programme No. 3/2022-23. 3. In terms of an interim order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 12th 2 August, 2025 in Writ Petition No. 16714 of 2025, the time for placement of indents for 1st and 2nd part of the Programme No. 3/2022-23 dated 25th April, 2025 for Gujarat and Rajasthan have been extended by 30 days for the rake Serial Nos. 12, 14, 39 AND 46 of the same programme. Vide a letter dated 27th August, 2025 the Director, NCEC & Special Secretary wrote to Chief Freight Transportation Manager, Western Railway, Churchgate, Mumbai and Chief Freight Transport Manager, North-Western Railway, Rajasthan, Jaipur showing revised schedule and detailed for rake wherein, in the remarks column the salt required to be indents in case of present petitioner was mentioned as <Common salt for iodisation=. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that after such letter for extension of time for placement of indents the petitioners have arranged common salt to carry the same from Gujarat and Rajasthan to West Bengal. Subsequently, vide impugned memo dated 10th September, 2025 the said Director, NCEC & Special Secretary issued a corrigendum of letter dated 27th August, 2025 whereby the term <common salt for iodisation= has been replaced as <Un- 3 crushed (crystal) common salt meant for iodisation=. 5. Petitioners are aggrieved against such impugned memo of corrigendum and they have submitted that a huge amount of money was engaged to transport the common salt through the Railway Rake but by such change of decision of the respondent authority, the business of the petitioners are at stake. 6. It is the sole contentions of the petitioners that the memo dated 10th September, 2025 be stayed and petitioners be allowed to carry the common salt through the rake. 7. Mr. Amrita Lal Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that the initial programme was started vide memo dated 25th April, 2025 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the Salt Iodisation Units at consuming centers shall procure only un-crushed (crystal) common salt for iodisation. 8. It is the positive instruction from the authority that in compliance with the order of a Coordinate Bench, the time for placement of indents for 1st and 2nd part of the Programme No. 3/2022-23 vide a letter dated 27th August, 2025 by the Director, NCEC & Special Secretary 4 there were inadvertent miss typing as common salt for iodisation. Accordingly, they have corrected the same by issuing the impugned corrigendum. 9. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that the programme which the petitioners have participated was always meant for procuring <Un-crushed (crystal) common salt for iodisation= not <crushed common salt=. 10. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that due to the inadvertent mistake, the petitioners have taken a chance to bring the crushed common salt which was not at all permitted. 11. One M/s Probhu Dyal Agarwal, a partnership firm filed an application for intervenor being CAN 1 of 2025. 12. Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the intending intervenor submits that the petitioners have came to know about the mistake committed by the authority vide letter dated 27th August, 2025. Accordingly, they placed a complaint for rectification of the letter before the authority. In terms of their complaint, the authority concerned has corrected the said mistake by issuing the impugned memorandum. 5 13. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that it was always the programme for bringing salt from outside the State of West Bengal that (crystal) common salt shall be procured for the purpose of iodisation. 14. Mr. Mukherjee further submits that it was always in the mind of the concerned authority that if crushed salt are being procured there may be some mixing of other nature of salt which may cause havoc to the public, lead to several deceased like goiter. He submits that the concerned authority was well conscious about the fact i.e. the reason why the programme dated 25th April, 2025 was issued specifying in clause 22 that <The Salt Iodisation Units at consuming centers shall procure on un- crushed (crystal) common salt for iodisation=. 15. Mr. Mukherjee further argued that the merit in the instant writ petition cannot be properly disposed of without hearing the intending intervenor. The intending intervenor also carrying the similar type of business so, he is necessary party in this proceeding. 16. Heard the learned counsels for the parties, i.e., learned senior counsel Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bandopadhyay for the petitioners, Mr. Amrita Lall Chatterjee the State and senior counsel 6 Mr. Probal Kr. Mukherjee for the intending intervenor. 17. It appears that very short issue is involved in the instant writ petition. Whether the corrigendum dated 10th September, 2025 issued by the Director, NCEC & Special Secretary was passed according to the law or according to the programme which was started by the authority for procurement of the common salt from outside State is bone of contention of this writ petition. 18. Let me consider the prayer of the writ petition, the petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 10th September, 2025 and seeks to cancel or withdraw the said impugned memo by issuance of mandamus. 19. First of all, let me consider whether CAN 1 of 2025, i.e. the petition for addition of parties whether justifiable in the present circumstances of this case. Admittedly, the present petitioner as well as the intending intervenor are the salt importers of the State of West Bengal, they are running the said business by importing the salt outside the State and after iodisation the same they sell the salt to the common people. 20. In the instant writ petition, the authority concerned has admitted that in pursuance to 7 the complaint made by the intending intervenor the order of corrigendum has been issued. The concerned authority has considered the complaint to be justifiable grounds for rectification. Thus, they rectified it by issuing corrigendum. The writ petitioner is aggrieved against such corrigendum and file the instant writ petition. The concerned authority must have moved through the complaint lodged by the intending intervenor and passed an order of corrigendum. The intending intervenor has his grounds in the complaint which appears to the authority to be justified and they have acted on it. 21. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of corrigendum according to the merits mentioned in writ petition. In disposing of the grievances of the petitioners, the merit of complaint lodged by the intending intervenor to the authority as well as the grounds thereon cannot be taken to be considered or it is not necessary that the points raised in the complaint by the intending intervenor before the authority has to be dealt with in deciding the instant writ petition. Moreover, as the petitioners as well as the intending intervenor are the competitors of the market and perform 8 in similar nature of business, the competitors of the particular business are not necessary party in the proceeding initiated by one of the business entity against state authority. 22. Petitioners are aggrieved against the action of the authority. State authority may have acted on the basis of the complaint lodged by the intending intervenor but for that reason, the State is only to answerable, not the intending intervenor. On that reasons, I find that the intending intervenor is not a necessary party or proper party in the proceeding. 23. Accordingly, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 appears to be not meritorious. The intending intervenor has no right to audiance in the instant writ petition. 24. Accordingly, the application being CAN 1 of 2025 is dismissed and disposed of. 25. It appears that the concerned authority has rectified the order of 27th August, 2025 by issuing an order dated 10th September, 2025 (impugned) with a ground that the term common salt for iodisation mentioned in order dated 27th August, 2025 by the Directorate is an inadvertent mistake. It is further grounds of the State authority that initially, programme initiated vide letter dated 25th April, 2025 in its 9 clause 22 has made it clear that <The Salt Iodisation Units at consuming centers shall procure on un-crushed (crystal) common salt for iodisation= which is well known to the petitioners but by virtue of the order dated 27th August, 2025 that the petitioners have tried to procure crushed common salt for iodisation. 26. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties also considering the entire writ petition and prayers thereof, it appears that the entire writ petition has only challenged i.e. on 10th September, 2025. 27. The order dated 10th September, 2025 itself, as issued by the respondent authority by making a three lines order. No reason was assigned why such corrigendum was issued. The corrigendum itself does not speak about the reasons for issuance such corrigendum. Moreover, the petitioners have successfully placed his case that in terms of memo dated 27th August, 2025 they have procured huge amount of crushed common salt for carrying the same through indents. Moreover, letter dated 25th April, 2025 is self confusing. 28. At this juncture, by issuance of sudden memorandum dated 10th September, 2025 itself cryptic one, and was issued without 10 arguing any reason. As such valuable right of hearing of the petitioners as well as huge money invested by the petitioners is at stake. 29. At this juncture, I think it necessary to relegate the matter to the Director, NCEC & Special Secretary who in turn shall hear out the petitioners and the interested parties and shall pass a necessary order in terms of right movement dated 25th April, 2025 and pass a reasoned order to that effect. 30. Under the above observations, the impugned memo dated 10th September, 2025 be stayed. 31. The authority concerned shall not allow the petitioners to carry the rake. The Director, NCEC & Special Secretary shall hear out the petitioners and pass a reasoned order within 3 days from the date of communication of this order. 32. The petitioners are directed to approach the Director, NCEC & Special Secretary within three days from the date of passing of this order. 33. The authority concerned shall communicate the reasoned order upon the petitioners and all concerned within two days from the date of passing of the order. 34. Under the above observations, the instant writ petition being WPA 22329 is disposed of. 11 35. Connected applications, if pending are also disposed of. 36. Parties to act upon the server copy and urgent certified copy of this order be provided on usual terms and conditions. (Subhendu Samanta, J.)