Calcutta High Court
WPA/19054/2025 of ASIMA MONDAL Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 14 September 2026
Item No.62 Ct. No. 10 BR WPA 19054 of 2025 Asima Mondal -vs- State of West Bengal and Ors. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya …. For the petitioner Mrs. Manju Agarwal , Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal, … for the State 1. In the present writ
14.09.2026
Item No.62
Ct. No. 10
BR
WPA 19054 of 2025
Asima Mondal
-vs-
State of West Bengal and Ors.
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Pingal Bhattacharyya
…. For the petitioner
Mrs. Manju Agarwal ,
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee,
Mr. Ram Chandra Agarwal,
… for the State
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. In the present writ petition, two orders dated 8.8.2025 and 14.8.2025 being the order for revocation of the FPS license issued by the respondent no. 6, are under challenge.
2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide an
order dated 19.8.2025 extensively dealt with the issue involved herein by passing a comprehensive and detailed order holding inter alia, that the order passed by the respondent no. 5 was erroneous on the following grounds which is reproduced hereinbelow for convenience: “After considering the entire aspect, it appears to me that the impugned order passed by the concerned licensing authority i.e. Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supplies, Contai is erroneous on the following grounds which is reproduced below: i) The petitioner was never given any opportunity to see the complaint of Thamia Khatun, an unsuccessful candidate. ii) Petitioner nature given any opportunity of hearing before order of termination/order of revocation. iii) The order of termination/order of revocation is not in according to the control order. iv) The District Controller, Food and Supplies , PUrba Medinipur has not never recorded his dissatisfaction over the enquiry report conducted by the SCFS, Contai. v) Moreover, the Director, DDPS, who is the authority to finally accord permission for selection of a candidate in respect of FPS has not placed any finding regarding his early decision of granting license in favour of the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents relies upon the page 58 of the order annexed to the writ petition and refers to the affidavit in opposition filed by the state respondent to demonstrate that by way of corrigendum, the nomenclature of the impugned order has been changed from an order of termination to an order of revocation.
4. Therefore, by virtue of the order dated 19.8.2025, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of prayer (b) and (c) by setting aside the impugned orders dated 8.8.2025 and14.8.2025.
5. With the above observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of along with all connected applications if any.
(Smita Das De, J.)