14.07.2026 Sl. No.: 51 Court No.10 BM WPA 28626 of 2024 JOYDEB SAHA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Mr. Partha Sarathi Das Ms. Shanta Sarkar Md. Umer Shadique Ms. Sudipa Das Mr. Agrajyoti Chandra Ms. Swarnali Ghosh Ms. Maria Sharwari ... for the petitioner Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal Ms. Sulagna Sarkar ... for the State 1. The petitioner in the instant case challenges inter alia the issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 28.08.2024 and the consequential Order of Penalty dated 18.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 5 whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been imposed in terms of Clause 23 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Empanelment of Flour Mill and Milling of Whole Meal Atta/Whole Meal Atta) Guidelines 2017 on the ground of poor quality of Atta in the samples collected by the respondent authorities. 2. The issue involved herein is whether the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 imposing penalty is sustainable in the eye of law when the detailed reply filed by the petitioner has not been considered and when the order is a non-speaking order passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 2 3. The petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the fact that there is an inherent inconsistency in the stand of the respondent. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 5 issued the show cause notice dated 28.08.2024 with regard to poor quality of Atta in the sample collected by the respondent authorities. In response to the same the petitioner filed their detailed reply on 03.09.2024 beforethe authority concerned. The same has not been considered properly and the authority concerned passed a cryptic order dated 18.09.2024 imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- in terms of Clause 23 of the said Guidelines 2017. 5. Being aggrieved with regard to the imposition of penalty, the petitioner made a representation before the authority concerned on 25.09.2024 for waiver of the same. 6. It is contended that such order passed by the authority imposing penalty is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law, as it has been passed without proper application of mind and without considering the reply filed by the petitioner. The petitioner draws the attention of this Court from the Show Cause Notice that due to breach of the provision of the said guidelines 2017, the penalty has been 3 imposed without supplying any cogent evidence has to that respect. 7. It is further submitted by the respondents that the order of penalty has been passed after giving due opportunity and the Writ Petition is not maintainable in view of the existence of an alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal. Thus the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. 8. In this context, it is submitted by the petitioner that since the issuance of the Show Cause Notice itself is under challenge along with the imposition of penalty the Writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition affirmed on 25.11.2024 i.e. within the statutory period prescribed in the statute and hence the Writ Petition is maintainable. 9. The Learned Counsel appearing for the state respondents submits that as per provision of law the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal within 30 days from the date of the said order under Clause 32 of the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order 2013 but the same has not been preferred within time. 10. It is further submitted that by a letter dated 13.09.2024 the respondent No. 5 informed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appropriate 4 authority in accordance with Clause 32 of the Control Order 2013. 11. Having heard the parties and upon perusing of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case and an interference is warranted at this stage since the respondent No. 5 has not considered the reply filed against the Show Cause Notice by the petitioner. 12. I find that the impugned order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 5 is a cryptic non- speaking order, bereft of any reasons, suffers from gross irregularity and is perverse in nature. The imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- entails civil consequences and the authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order after due consideration of the defence taken. The impugned order does not reflect any application of mind to the points raised in the reply dated 03.09.2024. Furthermore, there is apparent inconsistency in the stand of the respondent authority, inasmuch as the show cause notice refers to guidelines 2017, whereas the direction to prefer an appeal is given under Clause 32 of the Control Order 2013. 13. In view of such the order dated 18.09.2024 is quashed and set aside and the respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the reply dated 03.09.2024 being Annexure P2 at pages 21-23 and shall pass a reasoned 5 and speaking order within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law upon affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such decision of the authority concerned shall be communicated to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 14. The Writ Petition is disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 15. However, it is made clear that since this Court has not gone into the merits of the allegation of the poor quality of Atta, the authority shall consider the matter afresh uninfluenced by its earlier order dated 18.09.2024. ( Smita Das De, J. )