Form No.J(2) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury WPA 1488 of 2026 Rahila Parvin Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Nabankur Paul Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul Mr. Badhisatya Ghosh For the State : Ms. Supriya Singh Mr. Alok Sah Heard on : 01.09.2026 Judgment on : 01.09.2026 Raja Basu Chowdhury, J (Oral): 1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order dated 1st July, 2026 passed by the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply, Food and Supply Department, Govt. of West Bengal as a second appellate authority from an order passed by the District Controller of Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar whereby the termination of fair price shop license issued in favour of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Controller of Food and Supply, Mekhliganj and the order passed by the Director of Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar was upheld. 2 WPA 1488 of 2026 2. Records would reveal that the petitioner, wife of Salim Malik Sarkar had participated in a selection process pursuant to a notice of inviting vacancy ID 202200217901 issued by the Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal for filling up the vacancy of FPS dealership under the West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, (in short, the “WBPDS (M & C) Control Order”), at Village – Madhya Hudumdange, near Hudum Danga A.P. School, G.P. – Dewanganj, Post Office – Fatehmamud, Police Station – Haldibari, District – Coochbehar, PIN – 735122. 3. Records would further reveal that the petitioner had become successful and was accordingly appointed as a dealer in respect of the FPS being license no. 32941000051 bearing FPS Code WB0329410279 dated 7th August, 2023 against the aforesaid vacancy ID. Upon obtaining such license, the petitioner had started running her FPS business. Records would also reveal that one Umar Faruk Sarkar, challenging the allotment of dealership in favour of the petitioner, had filed a writ petition which was registered as WPA No. 1917 of 2023, on the ground that the petitioner had obtained the said allotment by misrepresentation of fact. According to the said Umar Faruk Sarkar though the petitioner claimed in her application that she was in possession of a land at Mouza No. 12, Madhya Hudumdanga J.L. No. 17. Khaian No. 320, Dag No. 370, measuring an area of 4 decimals out of 7 decimals, 3 WPA 1488 of 2026 classified as Bastu, however, no godown was constructed on the said plot of land but the godown was constructed on plot no. 371 which happens to be a land classified as Barga land and that, the business was being carried on from the said plot without any conversion. It is in the peculiar facts that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 14th November, 2024 had directed the Sub Divisional Controller, the respondent no. 8 therein to conduct an enquiry by visiting Mouza- Madhya Hudumdanga, JL No.- 017, Khatian No. 320, G.P. – Dewanganj, Block – Haldibari, Police Station – Mekhliganj, and ascertain as to whether at L.R. Plot No. 370, L.R Khatian No. – 320, there exists any shop room or it is vacant land. Such inspection was directed to be carried out upon notice to the writ petitioner and respondent no. 10 and their learned Advocates. The identification of the land in question was directed to be made by the staff by the BLLRO or by any registered surveyor competent to do such work. 4. In terms of the aforesaid direction passed by the co-ordinate Bench an enquiry was initiated and the petitioner was notified with regards to the same by communication dated 6th January, 2026 intimating therein that on 10th January, 2025 such enquiry would be conducted. Subsequently, by a further notice dated 14th January, 2025 a personal hearing was also afforded to the petitioner. Following the same an order was passed on 27th January, 2025 by the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, 4 WPA 1488 of 2026 Mekhliganj, inter alia, recording therein that the field enquiry report had been submitted by the BLLRO, Haldibari on 13th January, 2025 wherein it had been mentioned that the godown in question is situated at LR Plot no. 371 of Mouza- Madhya Hudumdanga, JL No. 17 and that the same is recorded as Barga land wherein one Giyasuddin Md., is shown bargadar. The order further records after the field enquiry an opportunity was provided for personal hearing to the petitioner on 16th January, 2025. The Sub Divisional Controller based on the aforesaid had though prima facie, held that the petitioner had obtained the license no. 32941000051 being FPS Code no. WB0329410279 by keeping the department totally in dark and providing of wrong information in the application form. Accordingly, considering the gravity and for smooth running of the Public Distribution System in exercise of powers conferred under the WBPDS (M & C) Control Order, the petitioner’s license for the FPS was suspended with immediate effect in public interest and the concerned license was tagged with the nearest FPS. 5. Following the aforesaid after hearing the petitioner by an order dated 10th September, 2025, the petitioner’s license was ultimately terminated, having regard to clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notification bearing Memo No. 263/SCF&S/MKG/22 dated 8th August, 2022, on the ground of providing false plot information of the godown and the character of land. 5 WPA 1488 of 2026 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Office of the District Controller, Food and Supplies Department, Cooch Behar. By an order dated 9th February, 2026 the said appeal did not find favour, inter alia, on the ground that the land shown by the petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory requirement being a bastu land as per vacancy notice, and incorrect information having been furnished by her regarding the plot number of the godown, amounting to misrepresentation of material facts. Accordingly, the appeal was found devoid of merit. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred a second appeal under clause 57(2) of the West Bengal Targeted Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2024 before the Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply. The said appeal also came to be rejected by an order dated 1st April, 2026. In course of hearing of such appeal as is recorded in the order, the petitioner had claimed that she committed a mistake and was otherwise innocent. The Director, District Distribution, Procurement and Supply, however, by the aforesaid order dated 1st April, 2026 did not interfere with the order impugned therein and accordingly, rejected the appeal. 8. Mr. Paul, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry conducted by the Office of the BLLRO was not supplied to the petitioner and he relied on a report prepared by a surveyor to demonstrate that the petitioner was, in fact, carrying 6 WPA 1488 of 2026 on business at plot no. 370. He further submitted that initially when the application was allowed, the same was allowed on the basis of verification conducted by the authorities and in the peculiar facts, the authorities could not have reviewed their own order. This apart, he also raises an issue that the suspension order was issued by powers conferred under the WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2013 whereas the order of termination was passed under the WBPDS (M&C) Order 2024. 9. Ms. Singh, learned Advocate representing the State would, however, submit that the petitioner having acknowledged that she had committed a mistake in identifying the property, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to rely on the surveyor’s report to hold out she was carrying on the business of FPS at plot no. 370. According to her, the license was obtained by suppression. In terms of the conditions noted in the FPS vacancy notice dated 8th August, 2022 that the action was taken. In this context, she draws the attention of this Court to clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notice which provides that any suppression of fact would be considered a good and justifiable reason for disqualification for a candidate or rejection of application and taking appropriate legal action. As such there is no irregularity in the order, no interference is called for. 10. Having heard the learned Advocates representing the respective parties, I find that although Mr. Paul, learned Advocate representing the petitioner would submit that the respondents 7 WPA 1488 of 2026 ought not have reviewed their own action, it is not in dispute that the judgment and order dated 14th November, 2024 was accepted by the parties. Such order was not challenged by the petitioner. The initiation of proceedings as would appear from the notice dated 8th January, 2025 issued by the Sub Divisional Controller was based on the above order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Having regard thereto, in my view, the objection raised by the petitioner that the authorities earlier having themselves conducted an inquiry before the allotment ought not have reviewed such action, cannot be sustained. On the aspect of non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner conducted by the BLLRO, I find that the petitioner herself has admitted before the second appellate authority that the petitioner had been carrying on the FPS business from plot no. 371 on the basis of a genuine mistake. Since, the petitioner herself has admitted that she was carrying on business from plot no. 371, in my view, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to once again base her case on the non-supply of the inspection report prepared by the concerned BLLRO especially when there is no dispute as regards the petitioner having acknowledged that she had been conducting business from plot no. 371, though by mistake. It is also not in dispute, at least, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the plot no. 371 is not a barga land. It has been conclusively established that plot no. 371 is a barga land and the recorded bargadar is Giyasuddin Md. 8 WPA 1488 of 2026 11. I also find that the petitioner was given ample opportunity of hearing. The petitioner’s license was not terminated without affording opportunity of hearing. It is not a case of violation of principles of natural justice. The order passed by the respondents does not appear to be perverse as well as, there is sufficient evidence to support the order. This apart, the petitioner has availed the second appellate remedy by filing a second appeal. In the peculiar facts, it is well settled that this Court cannot, in exercise of power of judicial review enter into any factual issue. On such ground the order cannot be faulted. The only other issue raised by the petitioner is with regard to the petitioner being suspended in terms of WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2013 and the termination of the license was effected by the WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2024. On this aspect, I find that when the direction to conduct the enquiry by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court was passed, the WBPDS (M&C) Control Order 2024 had already been given effect, and as such, I find no irregularity for the action taken by the respondents in terminating the licence. Further termination was effected for violation of Clause 15(iv) of the vacancy notice dated 8th August, 2022. As such, there is no irregularity in the action. 12. In the light of the above, the writ petition fails and accordingly, dismissed without any order as to costs. 13. The respondents are, however, directed to publish a notice to fill up the vacancy within four weeks, in accordance with law unless, 9 WPA 1488 of 2026 the same has already been notified. Needless to note that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to participate in such vacancy notice and the termination of the license should not be construed as a disqualification for the petitioner to participate in process, since the petitioner has stated that she may have committed a mistake in identifying plot no. 370. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) S.Seal A.R.C.R