Re-enquiry Without Justification in FPS Dealership Selection Process Quashed: Calcutta High Court

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court quashed the decision of the District Level Fare Price Shop Selection Committee (DLFPSSC) to conduct a re-enquiry for selecting a Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealer, deeming it beyond its statutory authority. The judgment emphasized that the re-enquiry and subsequent actions were “dehors to the provision of West Bengal Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control Order) 2013” and the corresponding notification dated August 17, 2021.

The petitioner contested the selection of the private respondent as an FPS dealer for Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, arguing that the initial inquiry deemed the respondent’s proposed godown unsuitable. Despite this, a re-enquiry was ordered by the DLFPSSC, which ultimately led to the private respondent’s selection.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s godown met all requisite criteria and was better situated compared to the private respondent's. Furthermore, the DLFPSSC had initially rated the private respondent as ineligible and awarded the petitioner higher marks, making the re-enquiry unnecessary.

Lack of Authority for Re-enquiry: Justice Subhendu Samanta observed, “The District Level Fare Price Shop Selection Committee does not have the authority to direct re-enquiry after awarding final marks to all candidates.” The Court emphasized that no provisions in the 2013 Order or the 2021 notification authorized the DLFPSSC to conduct re-evaluations after finalizing scores.

Public Interest and Expediency: While the state government retains the power to act in exigencies of public interest, the Court found no such urgency to justify the re-enquiry. Justice Samanta clarified, “The domain of the State Government to act in exigencies of public interest is limited to expediting the engagement process, which was not warranted in the present case.”

Article 14 Violations: The Court reaffirmed that state actions must adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, and reasonableness. Referring to precedents, the Court stressed that arbitrariness and favoritism contravene Article 14 of the Constitution.

Proximity and Suitability: The petitioner’s godown was nearer to the central location and larger than the private respondent’s. The Court deemed the initial inquiry’s findings reliable and saw no grounds for their reversal.

The Court quashed the offer letter and license issued to the private respondent and directed the concerned authorities to award the FPS dealership to the petitioner if found eligible under the law. The process was to be completed within six weeks.

Date of Decision: 27/11/2024