05 14.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A. 3517 of 2026 Murshid Ahamed -versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Duke Banerjee. Mr. Bappa Dey. … for the petitioner. Mr. Debasish Chaudhury. Sr. Govt. Adv. Mr. Nikunj Berlia. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Sabyasachi Mandal. … for the State. Mr. Sabyasachi Chatterjee. Mr. Kiron Sk. Mr. Jamiuddin Sk. … for the private respondent. 1. Mr. Nikunj Berlia, learned A.G.P. is requested to assist this Court and his engagement in this matter be regularized along with all other learned counsels who have already been engaged from the office of the Government Pleader. 2. The State respondents have filed written instructions along with the relevant documents pertaining to the enquiry report. Let the same be kept on record. 3. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality, sustainability of the selection process as well as the candidature of the private respondent for grant of license against the vacancy of 2 Fair Price Shop (Ration Shop) vacancy ID: 202300223204 . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an application for grant of license against the vacancy of the Fair Price Shop dated 21.5.2024. Thereafter, on 7.1.2025 the enquiry officer conducted an enquiry at the godown of the petitioner and the private respondent and found the private respondent to the most suitable candidate since the marks awarded for accessibility to the godown was higher than the marks of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is a sheer case of nepotism. Despite the petitioner being the most suitable candidate and having been recommended before the District Controller, Food and Supplies (DCF & S), the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, which is not permissible under law and violates principles of natural justice. 6. From the records it appears that both the private respondent and the petitioner have been found to be the most eligible candidate for the grant of FPS license. However, upon perusal of the records submitted by the State respondents, it reveals that there is an interpolation in the enquiry report conducted by the Inspector-in-charge dated 7.1.2025. The measurement of the approach road of the ‘shop 3 cum godown from the central point of the notified vacancy’ in meters has been interpolated by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report conducted in respect of the private respondent. 7. The State respondents submit a written instruction along with the relevant documents to demonstrate the requisite criteria for consideration of the candidature of both the petitioner as well as the private respondent. The comparative assessment report is also placed on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent vehemently raises an objection to the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the candidature of a successful candidate, the petitioner being an unsuccessful candidate. 9. It is further submitted that since the private respondent has been found to be the most suitable candidate, the authority concerned has already granted the license by tagging the ration cards and the same has become operational. 10. It is further submitted that the private respondent is running the Fair Price Shop business smoothly without any interruption, and at this juncture, if the writ petition is allowed, it shall cause prejudice to the interest of the public at large. 11. After hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has 4 been able to make out a prima facie case warranting interference at this stage, on the basis of the relevant documents annexed to the written instructions placed on record by the State respondents. 12. To balance equity and for the ends of justice, the respondent no. 2 shall consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh by causing an independent enquiry with the assistance of the concerned enquiry officers to arrive at a logical and conclusive finding and also to ascertain the reasons for interpolation in the enquiry report of the private respondent with regard to the size of the approach road and the distance of the shop cum godown of the distance of the shop cum godown from the central point of the notified vacancy. 13. The respondent no. 2 shall pass a reasoned and speaking order upon affording an opportunity of personal hearing to both the petitioner and the private respondent, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order and communicate such decision within a week thereafter. 14. It is made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall take an independent decision on its own merits and shall not be influenced with the observations made herein above. The petitioner and the private respondent shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. 5 15. With the above observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of this case. 16. It is further made clear that the respondent no. 2 shall take necessary steps in accordance with law against the enquiry officer for interpolating the enquiry report of the private respondent. 17. Till the decision of the respondent no. 2 attains finality, the private respondent shall be permitted to continue his Fair Price Shop. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible. ( Smita Das De, J.)