Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process

Calcutta High Court, presided by Justice Subhendu Samanta, delivered a pivotal judgment in M.M. Enterprise & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 24482 of 2023), addressing procedural irregularities in selecting an MR distributor. The court quashed the selection of Respondent No. 6, citing failures in eligibility compliance under the Control Order, 2013, and jurisdictional overreach in godown plan approvals under the West Bengal Panchayat Act.

The case arose from a selection notification dated September 1, 2022, for an MR distributorship vacancy in Samserganj, West Bengal. M.M. Enterprise contested the approval granted to Respondent No. 6, alleging his godown failed key specifications required under the Control Order, 2013, and was improperly sanctioned by a Gram Panchayat instead of the Zilla Parishad.

The petitioners contended that Respondent No. 6’s godown lacked essential features, such as proper ventilation and an open veranda, as mandated by the Control Order, 2013.

The court found that Respondent No. 6’s godown scored zero for ventilation and veranda requirements in an initial inspection, yet received an inexplicably high 80% mark from the Directorate Level Selection Committee. Justice Samanta held that this mark allocation disregarded merit and was arbitrary, stating, “Providing 80% marks to a person having no proper godown cannot be accepted”​.

According to the West Bengal Panchayat Act, only the Zilla Parishad has authority to sanction plans for structures exceeding 6,000 square feet, making the Gram Panchayat’s approval for Respondent No. 6’s larger godown invalid.

The court emphasized that this improper sanction violated the Control Order's requirements for safety and suitability in public distribution, deeming the Gram Panchayat’s approval “beyond its jurisdiction” and thus void​.

Despite an initial score advantage for the petitioner (80 to Respondent No. 6’s 75), final marks were heavily influenced by an 80% weightage given to Respondent No. 6, leading to his selection. The court criticized this lack of transparency, asserting that “the competent authority’s actions invite judicial intervention” to ensure fair decision-making​.

The Calcutta High Court quashed Respondent No. 6's selection as MR distributor and directed the State to issue the license to the petitioner if he meets all eligibility requirements within six weeks. The court denied Respondent No. 6’s request for a stay on this order, reinforcing the immediacy of compliance​.

Date of Decision: November 7, 2024