17.08.26 09Ct. No.10 Sws.M WPA 12743 of 2026 Sujauddin vs. The State of West Bengal &Ors. Mr. Pranoy Ghosh ….for the petitioner Ms. Manju Agarwal, Sr. Adv. AGP Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee ….for the State-respondents Mr. Pratip Kumar Chatterjee Ms. Maitrayee Chatterjee ….for the respondent No. 8 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for grant of Fair Price Shop Licence pursuant to Vacancy Notification ID No. 202200224606 dated 14.10.2022. 2. The core issue is whether the rejection of the petitioner’s application is arbitrary and whether the selection and grant of licence in favour of the Private Respondent No. 8 is sustainable in law. 3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had submitted his application along with all relevant documents as prescribed in the vacancy notification. 4. Despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected without assigning any cogent reason. 2 5. It is contended that on 15.03.2023 the date fixed for enquiry, the Enquiry officer did not call for the requisite documents for consideration of the petitioner’s candidature. 6. It is further submitted that such action is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of nature justice and therefore liable to be set aside. 7. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 8. It is submitted that the vacancy has already been filled and the licence for running the FPS Dealership has been granted to the private respondent No. 8, who has been found to be the most suitable candidate. 9. It is further submitted that at the time of the filing the application dated 06.02.2023, the petitioner failed to annex the documents required under Clause (VI) and (VII) of the Part IV of the notification. 10. By an Order dated 30.03.2026, the representation of the petitioner has been considered and disposed of, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that due to insufficient particulars and non-submission of requisite documents, the candidature of the petitioner has been rightly rejected. 3 11. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Private Respondent No. 8 submits that the challenge to the entire selection process is misconceived and not maintainable. 12. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the most suitable candidate for grant of licence and therefore no interference is warranted in the selection already made. Thus the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. Heard Learned Counsels for all parties upon perusing the materials available on records. 14. This Court has taken judicial notice of all relevant documents and finds that the petitioner has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions prescribed in the Vacancy Notification. 15. Specifically, the petitioner did not annex the registered Partnership Deed and documents evidencing right to possession over the proposed place of business with the application. 16. Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference. 17. The action of the State respondents does not suffer from any arbitrariness. 18. The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature and the grant of licence in favour of the private respondent no. 8 in respect of Plot / Dag No. 4 5764, Khatian No. 620(old), Post Office Khgram, J. L. No. 104 is found to be in order and the said dealership is presently operational, is found to be in accordance with law. 19. In view of the foregoing observations the Writ Petition is dismissed without going into the merits of the case. 20. No order as to costs. (Smita Das De, J.)