23 28.09.2026 Court No. 10 AGM In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side W.P.A. 14101 of 2026 Nasim Ali Molla -versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Syed E. Huda. Mr. Sk. Aptabuddin. Ms. Nabeela Akbar. Ms. Saima Amin. …For the Petitioner. Mr. Nikunj Berlia. Ld. A.G.P. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee. … For the State. Mr. Neil Basu. Md. Nur Hossain Zanedar. Sk. Md. Wasim Akram. … For the private respondent no. 7. 1. Affidavit of Service filed in Court today be kept on records. 2. Even on 2nd call, the State respondent remained unrepresented. Mr. Nikunj Berlia, the Learned Additional Government Pleader, and Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate are engaged in this matter on behalf of the State. Their appearances be regularised from the office of the Learned Advocate Government Pleader. 3. The petitioner challenges, inter alia, the legality and validity of the Fair Price Shop Dealership licence granted in favour of respondent No. 7 on the ground that 2 the respondent No. 7 is medically unfit and incapacitated for running the FPS dealership and is engaged in other business in violation of the prescribed conditions of the notification. 4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that; a) It is mandatory for a suitable candidate to be a person of sound mind and medically fit for running FPS dealership. b) Respondent No. 7 has submitted incorrect and fabricated documents to project himself as a most suitable candidate. c) Despite petitioner being most eligible in all respect including fulfilment of criteria regarding size, structure, nature, character, distance, title of godown and shop room, his candidature has been rejected arbitrarily and illegally and is liable to be quashed. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Private respondent vehemently opposes the submissions of the petitioner and submits that the allegation levelled against private respondent are not tenable in the eye of law since he has submitted all relevant documents to substantiate his bonafide to be the most suitable eligible candidate. 6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the State respondent takes a fair stand and submits that he has no 3 objection if the matter is relegated to the authority concerned for proper adjudication on the basis of records for ascertaining candidature of both petitioner and private respondent. 7. Considering the rival submissions, this Hon’ble Court directs the private respondent to produce his medical certificate from SSKM Hospital along with case summary by way of affidavit to ascertain his medical fitness and eligibility to run FPS dealership with regard to his health within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 8. The respondent No. 6 shall fix a date and time, upon serving a notice of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondent to arrive at and consider the medical certificates for ascertaining the grant of FPS licence and to arrive at a logical and conclusive finding with regard to the grant of FPS licence as already granted in favour of the respondent No. 7. 9. The respondent No. 6 shall consider and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law upon affording opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and the private respondent and such decision shall be communicated within a week thereafter. 10. With the above observations and directions the Writ Petition stands disposed of without going into the merits of the case. 4 11. However, it is made clear that the respondent No. 6 shall take an independent decision without being influenced by any observations made hereinabove. ( Smita Das De, J.)