Team  SoOLEGAL

Supreme Court Imposes Rs.50000 As Costs On State Of West Bengal[Read Judgment]

Team SoOLEGAL 7 Jul 2017 10:17am

Supreme Court Imposes Rs.50000 As Costs On State Of West Bengal[Read Judgment]

The bench of Supreme Court, Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, imposed costs of Rs.50,000 on the State of  West Bengal on July 4, while dismissing a Special Leave Petition against the High Court of Calcutta judgment quashing the state Government’s order denying the benefit of compassionate appointment in favour of a litigant for running a fair price shop.

The Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta had given his ruling on April 22, 2016 and the Division Bench of Supreme Court had dismissed the West Bengal State Government’s appeal against it on September 19, 2016.   The Supreme Court of India dismissed the State Government’s appeal both on the ground of delay as well as on merits and directed that the costs imposed be deposited with the SC Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks.

In the immediate case, the petitioner before the High Court of Calcutta, and the respondent before the SC, Matadin sought transfer of dealership in respect of his Fair Price Shop being run in the area of Jorasanko of Kolkata North, under the sub-control of the Food and Supply Department of the state Government in favour  of his nephew, due to his physical disability as a result of his old age.

The West Bengal State Government rejected his application on the ground that his nephew did not come within the zone of deliberation under the West Bengal Urban Public Distribution System (Maintenance and Control) Order, 2013, which came into force on August 12, 2013.  The State Government contended that his nephew did not come within the ambit of the definition “family member” under the said  Control Order, 2013.

Matadin, however, claimed he submitted his application on June 6, 2013.  But the State Government contended that his application was considered after the Order came into force.

The High Court of Calcutta had held that no retrospective effect should be given to any statutory provision which amounts to impairing or taking away an existing right unless there is a direction of that statute for giving retrospective effect to the same either expressly or by necessary implication.  As a result, Matadin’s application must have been considered under the Control Order, 2003, which was in force at the time he submitted his application, the high court held.

Finding that the 2003 Order was silent on compassionate ground, the Calcutta High Court drew attention to a departmental guideline issued by the state Government in 1985, which was not canceled or superseded. This guideline provided for the appointment of next of kin of deceased/resigned dealer in absence of unwillingness of husband/wife/son/daughter of such dealer, to be appointed. Consequently, the high court of Calcutta directed the state Government to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to Matadin’s nephew, provided he is found eligible for it.

Read the Judgment Here

Supreme Court   SC   West Bengal   Sanjay Kishan Kaul   Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman  

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com