Holding

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s judgment and confirming the validity of the first respondent’s appointment as MR dealer.

Summary

The case concerned the grant of a Modified Rationing (MR) dealership in West Bengal. Both Swapan Kumar Pal (appellant) and Achintya Kumar Nayak (first respondent) applied, and the Sub‑Divisional Controller, after applying criteria of financial solvency, possession of a godown and trade proficiency, recommended the first respondent, whose application was approved by the Collector. The appellant challenged the decision, arguing that the first respondent did not own a godown at the time of application and that the High Court had wrongly considered educational qualifications. A Single Judge set aside the Collector’s order and directed the appointment of the appellant; the Division Bench of the High Court reversed that order and upheld the first respondent’s appointment. The Supreme Court held that the decision‑making process complied with the relevant criteria, that the High Court should not intervene absent a legal error, and that the consideration of possession (not ownership) of a godown was proper. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the first respondent’s dealership intact.

Issues considered

The grant of MR dealership is subject to any statutory or regulatory framework.
Whether the High Court could interfere with the competent authority's decision under Article 226.
Whether the consideration of educational qualifications and the deed of gift were relevant to the selection criteria.
Whether possession of a godown, as opposed to ownership, is a requisite condition for the dealership.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

Modified Rationing dealershipAdministrative lawJudicial reviewArticle 226Selection criteriaPossession of godownFinancial solvencyTrade proficiencyHigh CourtSupreme Court

Judgment

A SWAPAN KUMAR PAL --(---1

v.
ACHINTYA KUMAR NA YAK AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
'
. 1

Constitution of India, I 950: y

c Article 226-Modified Rationing dealership-Name of First
respondent recommended by competent authority for grant of
dealership-Grant thereof-Inte1ference by High Court under Article
226-Held: Not calledfor as he fuljilled the relevant criteria-Public
Distribution System.
D Administrative Law:
Decision making process-Interference with-Scope of-
)----
Discussed

The Selection process for the grant of MR dealership was
E
conducted wherein both appellant and the First respondent filed their
respective applications. The competent authority recommended the
name of First respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Collector granted MR
dealership to him. Appellant filed writ petition before High Court. Single
judge allowed the same. First respondent successfully appealed before
F
the Division Bench of the High Court.
1-
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the Division
Bench committed a manifest error in reversing the judgment of the
Single Judge insofar as it took into consideration irrelevant factors,
G namely, educational qualifications of the candidates; and that the First
respondent did not own a godown on the date of filing of the application
which was the determinative factor for grant of the dealership and the
appellant fulfilled the said criteria and hence was entitled thereto.
t-,

H 428
,..t

SW APAN KUMAR PAL v. ACHINTYA KUMAR 429
NAYAK
~-..,..

Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. Grant of MR dealership in the State of West Bengal is
not governed by any statute or statutory rules. Appropriate Authority,
however, have issued a notification on or about 21.11.2000 pursuant
whereto, both, the appellants and the first respondent, filed their
1

B
applications. The appellant is owning a godown of which he had b~en in
f .
possession. His financial solvency was stated to be Rs. 50,000/- and
..,../ the trade proficiency and experience in running the business for $bout
five years. First Respondent had, however, in his application stated that
he had been in possession of a godown which had been donated to him
by his uncle. [Para 9] [432-D, E]
c
2. The Sub-Divisional Controller ofFood and Supplies, upon taking
.into consideration the relevant criteria for grant ofMR dealership, made
recommendations in favour of the first respondent. An enquiry thereto
was also made. 'A spot visit was made by the competent authority. D
-~ Qualifications and experiences of the respective candidates were taken
into consideration ~d the first respondent was recommended by the
Competent Authority on or about 26.2.2001. [Para 10] [432-F, G[

3.1. The criteria which were relevant for grant of MR dealersflip, E
were: financial solvency, possession of Godown and trade proficiency.
It may be true that the candidates were not required to have ~my
particular educational qualification. Workable knowledge was sufficient
It, however, appears from the counter affidavit of the first respondent
that the scheme in question was meant for the Educated Unemployed F
-'! People. The Competent Authority, therefore, was to consider the
respective cases of the parties upon application of the relevant criteria
so far as the candidates are concerned.
[Paras 13and14] (434-B, C, DJ
3.2. No statutory order or any notification operating in the fieJd G
has been produced before this Court. Relevant criteria therefor,
-~ however, can be ascertained from the form of the applications filed by
the parties. The sites of the shop and the capacity of the godown as also
a valid document for possession thereof were some of the relevant
criteria besides trade proficiency and the period during which the H
\

t-.
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A applicant was in business. Ownership ofthe godown was not an essential
condition but the possession thereof was.

[Paras 15and16] [434-E,F]
4.1. Single Judge ofthe High Court, therefore, misdirected himself
B in posing a wrong question namely, ownership of the godown which was
not of much relevance. [Para 17] [434-F, G] . '.
4.2. The Division Bench ofthe High Court might have committed
an error in taking into consideration the respective educational
qualifications and might have also erred in taking into consideration a
C subsequent event, namely execution of a deed of gift in favour of the
first respondent by his uncle, but even if the same are left out of
consideration there would not be any change in the position ofthe parties.
Ifany recommendation has been made in favour ofthe first respondent
having regard to the sites of the shopj possession of the godown and
D trade proficiency as also the period during which candidates were in
business, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the Competent
Authority could grant MR dealership in favour otthe first respondent
relying on or on the basis of the said criteria.
[Para 18] [434-G, 435-A, B]
E
5. In a case of this nature, ordinarily, the High Court would not
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. For exercising the power ofjudicial review, the Court has
a limited role to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been
F committed in the decision making process. It could not enter into the
merit of the decision. [Para 19) [435-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4865 of
2007.
G From the Judgmem and final Order dated 29.11.2006 of the High
Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 787 of2004.
S.B. Sanyal, Rana Mukherjee, D. Bharat Kumar, Chandra Bhushan
Prasad, Indrani and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant.
H Ranjit Kumar Jaiswal, Pradeep Mukherjee, Sarla Chandra, T.C.
t
SWAPAN KUMAR PAL v. ACHINTYA KUMAR 431
NA YAK [SINHA, J.]
·--)-
Sharma, Neelam Shanna and Rajeev Shanna for the Respondents. A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
"""' S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The parties hereto were contenders for grant of a Modified
B
Rationing (MR) Shop. The MR shop in question situated in village Sasapga
was given to one Abdul Salim who was appointed as a MR dealer. He
y was found to have been committed some irregularities in relation to
distribution of Kerosene. An enquiry in regard thereto was conducted.
His licence was suspended. He preferred an appeal thereagainst. The
Appellate Authority while continuing the suspension of licence for
c
kerosene, however, directed restoration of dealership in respect of ether
items like rice, wheat, sugar etc.
3. Salim filed a writ petition which ultimately came up for hearing
before a Division Bench. Keeping in view the fact that in the mean time D
MR dealership at village Sasanga was given to the first respondent herein,
·~ the Division Bench give liberty to Salim to make him as a party in the
appeal preferred before the appellate authority.
4. During the pendency of the said proceedings, a regular selecti9n E
for appointment process of MR dealers at Sasanga village was conducted.
There were three contenders, one of them being one Ms. Sarama Mondal
left the fray in the midway. Between rest of the two, recommendatiori.s
were made by the competent authority to grant MR dealership of Sasanga
to Achintya. Pursuant to the said recommendations, the Collector (District
F
_y Controller) granted MR dealership to the first respondent by an order
dated 15.2.2002.
5. A writ petition filed by the appellant herein was allowed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court. However, on an intra-court appeal
having been preferred by the first respondent herein, a Division Bench of G
the Court allowed the same by reason of the impugned judgment dated I

·--'- 9,11,2006.
6. The appellant is, thus, before us.
H
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
)

~
A 7. Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the Division Bench committed a
manifest error in reversing the judgment of the learned Single Judge insofar
as it took into consideration irrelevant factors, namely, educational
qualifications of the candidates. It was urged that the learned Single Judge
B having taken into consideration the fact that the respondent did not own
a godown on the date of filing of the application which was the
~
determinative factor for grant of the dealership and the appellant herein
having fulfilled the said criteria was entitled thereto. ""( l
t--

c 8. Mr. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first
respondent, on the other hand, supportted the impugned judgment urging
that the learned Single Judge, in a case of this nature, could not have
exercised the power of judicial review.
9. Grant of MR dealership in the State of West Bengal does not
D appear to be governed by any statute or statutory rules. Appropriate
Authority, however, have issued a notification on or about 21.11.2000
pursuant whereto, both, the appellants and the firstrespondent, filed their
,.,
applications. So far as the appellant is concerned, he is said to be owning
a godown of which he had been in possession. He financial solvency was
E stated to be Rs.50,000/- and the trade proficiency and experience in
running the business for about five years. First Respondent had, however,
in his application stated that he had been in possession of a godown which
had been donated to him by his uncle.

F 10. The Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and.Supplies, upon taking
into consideration the relevant criteria for grant of MR dealership, made
1-
recommendations in favour of the first respondent. An enquiry thereto was
also made. A spot visit was made by the competent authority.
Qualifications and experiences of the respected candidates were taken into
G consideration and the first respondent was recommended by the
Competent Authority on or about 26.2.2001. The District Controller of
Food and Supplies thereafter passed an order on 15.2.2002 granting
dealership in his favour, stating:
"In due deference to the direction of His Lordship Hon'ble Justice
H
SWAPAN KUMAR PAL v. ACHINTYA KUMAR 433
NAY AK [SINHA, J.]
Ashim Kumar Banerjee in the High Court of Kolkata regarding A
the WP No.18364(W) of2001 held the personal hearing of Sri
Swapan Kumar Pal writ petitioner and Sri Achintya Kumar Nay~
the private respondent No.7 in my office chamber on 4.2.02 at
12 noon. Sri Swapan Kumar Pal was represented by his learned
counsel while Sri Achinta Kumar Nayak represented himself B
personally. Both the parties were heard exhaustively and were
allowed to disclose all their credentials papers and documents in
support of their credentials rival contentions. While appointing qf
MR Dealer, salient aspect of suitability of storage space of MF
Commodities, sound financial potentiality experience and workable C
educational qualifications are generally taken into consideratiort.
Both the candidature were examined on the above light and I found
that Sri Achintya Kumar Nayak has fuifilled the aforesaid criteri11
and I do not find any point to negate the edge of Sri AK. Nayak
over the other. D
Sub-Divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Burdwan being
the appertaining (sic for appointing) authority of the MR Dealer in
the like extent case would proceed accordingly and also ensure
obtaining approval of the MR vacancy by the Government which
is deficient in this case." E

11. On a writ petition filed by the appellant herein, a learned Single
Judge arrived at a finding that the first responde1:1t had no valid title either
by way of ownership or tenancy in respect of the godown and the said
order of the Collector could not be sustained. It was directed : · F
"I, thus, find that the petitioner is the only other person who has.
all the requisite qualifications as the case of the other one need not
be considered as per the order of Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. which
is binding upon the parties.
G
I, therefore, set aside the order impugned and direct the State-
respondent to appoint the petitioner in place of the private '
respondent subject, however, to approval of the vacancy as
indicated in the order impugned. Formal order should be passed
H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this
order."
12. As noticed hereinbefore, the Division Bench of the said High
Court reversed the said decision.
B 13. The criteria which were relevant for grant of MR dealership,
inter alia, were :
1. Financial Solvency
2. Possession of Godown
c 3. Trade Proficiency.
14. It may be true that the candidates were not required to have
any particular educated qualification. Workable knowledge was sufficient.
It, however, appears from the counter affidavit of the first respondent that
D the scheme in question was meant for the 'Educated Unemployed People'.
The Competent Authority, therefore, was to consider the respective cases
of the parties upon application of the relevant criterias so far as the
candidates are concerned.
15. No statutory order or any notification operating in the field has
E been produced before us. Relevant criteria therefor, however, can be
ascertained from the fonn of the applications filed by the parties.
16. It appears that sites of the shop and the capacity of the godwon
as also a valid document for possession thereof were some of the relevant
F criteria besides trade proficiency and the period during which the applicant
was iri business. Ownership of the godown was not an essential condition
but the possession thereof was.
17. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, therefore, in our opinion,
G misdirected himself in posing a wrong question. He had taken into
consideration a factor, namely, ownership of the godown which was not
of much relevance.
18. The Division Bench of the High Court might have committed an
error in taking into consideration the respective educational qualifications
H
t
SWAPAN KUMAR PAL v. ACHINTYA KUMAR 435
NAYAK [SINHA, J.]
of the petitioner and the fist respondent and might have also erred in taking A
into consideration a subsequent event, namely execution of a deed of gift
in favour of the first respondent by his uncle, but even the same are left
out of consideration there would not be any change in the position of the
parties. If any recommendation has been made in favour of the first
respondent having regard to the sites of the shop, possession of the B
godown and trade proficiency as also the period during which candidates
were in business, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the
Competent Authority could grant MR dealership in favour of the first
respondent relying on or on the basis of the said criteria.
19. In a case of this nature, ordinarily, the High Court would not
c I

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
For exercising the power of judicial review, the Court has a limited role
to play. It could interfere only if any legal error has been committed in
the decision making process. It could not enter into the merit of the
decision. D
20. We, therefore, are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgment. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
E
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

-Y