3 9.9.2026 Court No. 10 chanchal In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A. 18769 of 2025 Ganendra Nath Naskar & Ors. -versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Syed E. Huda. Sk. Aptabuddin. …For the petitioners. Mr. Nikunj Berlia, Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee Ms. Manasi Mukherjee … For the State. 1. The petitioners in the instant case challenges inter alia, the order of rejection dated 21.02.2025 on the ground of non-submission of application for appointment on compassionate ground as required under Clause 39, Chapter VI of the West Bengal Targeted Distribution System (M&C) Order 2024 (hereinafter referred to as „Control Order 2024). 2. Appropo the facts of the case is that the petitioners‟ are the son and daughter in law of the deceased dealer, who expired on 01.01.2024 leaving behind six legal heirs. The husband of the deceased dealer had pre- deceased the licensee. 3. The petitioners submitted an application on 06.01.2025 seeking appointment on 2 compassionate ground against the license held by the deceased dealer. 4. All the legal heirs of the deceased dealer have disclosed their credentials in Form C before the authority concerned. 5. The petitioners heavily relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bakul Rani Patra –Vs- The State of West Bengal & Ors in M.A.T. No. 1019 of 2018 with CAN No. 6965 of 2018 wherein Their Lordships concurred to hold that “the time limit of 60 days in the Control Order of 2013 is directory and not mandatory and the delay in making an application for compassionate appointment can be condoned if sufficient grounds are made out.” 6. The petitioners also places reliance upon the judgment dated 02.03.2020 passed in WPA 4709 of 2025 (Moktar Sardar & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). 7. It is submitted that an inter se family dispute arose amongst the legal heirs which prevented the petitioners from filing the application within the time specified. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners failed to assign any cogent reason for the delay caused in filing the application. 9. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is distinguishable both 3 in facts as well as in law. In the said precedent, the petitioners had shown sufficient cause for the delay in submitting the „No Objection Certificate‟, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 10. In conspectus of the above discussion as adumbrated herein, the order of rejection dated 21.02.2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The decision taken by respondent no. 5 to reject the application solely on the ground of delay, runs contrary to the intent of the statute and is violative of principles of natural justice. 12. Having heard the parties upon perusing the materials available on record, this court directs the respondent no. 4 to re-visit the issue and to consider the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the Division Bench Judgment Bakul Rani Patra (supra) and the order passed in Moktar Sardar & Anr.(supra). Respondent no.4 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, upon affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners and the other stake holders if any, and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. 13. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners are found to be eligible for appointment on 4 compassionate ground, the respondent authorities shall forthwith issue license in favour of the petitioners upon compliance of all other formalities in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly without taking any exception to the merits of the case. 15. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned counsel for the parties on usual undertakings. ( Smita Das De, J.)