Calcutta High Court: Petition Challenging M.R. Food Grain Distributorship Dismissed as Petitioner Provided False Details About Godown; Court Reiterates “Fraud Unravels Everything” and Upholds Valid Appointment of Respondent

Court’s Decision

The Calcutta High Court rejected the petitioner’s plea to cancel the M.R. distributorship license granted to another candidate (respondent no. 10). The court found that the petitioner was ineligible at the time of application and had provided false information about meeting the eligibility criteria. It stated that judicial intervention in administrative decisions is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness, bias, or unreasonableness, none of which were present in this case.

The judgment emphasized, “No court will allow a person to retain an advantage obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.”

Facts

1. Notification Requirements:
   • The Directorate of Food and Supplies, West Bengal, issued a notification on September 1, 2022, inviting applications for a vacancy of M.R. Distributor in Chandipur Block.
   • Applicants were required to possess a godown with specific dimensions, sufficient to store 1,000 metric tons of food grains.
2. Petitioner’s Application:
   • The petitioner applied for the position and claimed that his godown met the required specifications.
   • Upon inspection, it was found that the petitioner’s godown was not constructed at the time of application.
3. Petitioner’s Allegations:
   • The petitioner argued that he had received verbal assurance from the inspecting authority to complete the godown construction within 25 days, which he did.
   • The petitioner alleged that the authorities arbitrarily granted the distributorship to respondent no. 10, who owned a godown outside Chandipur Block.
4. Respondent No. 10’s Appointment:
   • Respondent no. 10 was awarded the distributorship as their godown, though situated in an adjacent block, met all eligibility criteria under the notification.

Issues

1. Eligibility of the Petitioner:
   • Was the petitioner eligible at the time of application in terms of the notification requirements?
2. Validity of Respondent No. 10’s Appointment:
   • Was the appointment of respondent no. 10 arbitrary, biased, or illegal?
3. Applicability of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
   • Did the petitioner have a reasonable expectation based on assurances from the authorities?
4. Petitioner’s Right to Challenge:
   • Did the petitioner have the right to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 10, despite his own ineligibility?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Incompleteness of Godown:
   • The petitioner acknowledged that his godown was incomplete at the time of inspection. However, he claimed that the inspecting team assured him that his application would be considered if construction was completed within 25 days.
2. Challenge to Respondent No. 10’s Lease Agreement:
   • The petitioner argued that respondent no. 10’s lease agreement was defective, providing only a permissive right to use the premises without a valid lease.
3. Legitimate Expectation:
   • The petitioner claimed that the verbal assurance created a legitimate expectation that his application would be reconsidered upon completing the godown.
4. Mechanical and Arbitrary Action:
   • He alleged that the authorities acted mechanically and arbitrarily in granting the license to respondent no. 10 without properly evaluating his financial capacity.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. False Statements by Petitioner:
   • The State and respondent no. 10 argued that the petitioner falsely claimed in his application that he possessed a godown meeting the required specifications. This amounted to fraud.
2. Compliance by Respondent No. 10:
   • Respondent no. 10’s godown met all requirements of the notification, including specifications and proximity to Chandipur Block.
3. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation:
   • The State contended that no assurance was given to the petitioner. Furthermore, the Control Order, 2013, does not allow an applicant to become eligible at a future date.
4. Valid Lease Agreement:
   • Respondent no. 10 argued that their lease agreement was valid under the Transfer of Property Act and sufficient to meet eligibility criteria.

Analysis of the Law

1. Eligibility of the Petitioner

• The notification required applicants to possess a godown with specific dimensions at the time of application.
• Inspection revealed that the petitioner’s godown was not constructed on the application date.
• The petitioner’s claim that he had an eligible godown was false and amounted to suppression of material facts. The court held, “Fraud unravels everything.”

2. Appointment of Respondent No. 10

• Respondent no. 10’s godown, though located in an adjacent block, was within 15 km of Chandipur Block, satisfying the notification’s provisions.
• The lease agreement of respondent no. 10 was valid and provided the requisite legal right to use the premises.

3. Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

• The court ruled that the petitioner could not rely on verbal assurances that contradicted statutory requirements.
• Legitimate expectation applies only when there is an express promise or established practice. Neither existed in this case.

4. Petitioner’s Right to Challenge

• The court held that the petitioner, being ineligible, had no legal right to challenge the appointment of respondent no. 10.
• It reiterated that only those with judicially enforceable rights can seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Precedent Analysis

1. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath: Fraudulent actions disqualify a party from obtaining judicial relief.
2. Union of India v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu: Judicial review cannot perpetuate illegality or override statutory norms.
3. Madras City Wine Merchants’ Association v. State of Tamil Nadu: Legitimate expectation requires express assurance or a consistent past practice.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Fraudulent Information by the Petitioner:
   • The petitioner knowingly provided false details about his godown, disqualifying him from consideration.
2. Validity of Respondent No. 10’s Appointment:
   • Respondent no. 10 was the only eligible candidate, and the authorities followed the rules in granting the distributorship.
3. Judicial Limitations:
   • The court emphasized that it does not have the expertise to substitute its judgment for administrative decisions unless there is evidence of arbitrariness or malafide intent.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating:

1. The petitioner was ineligible and had no right to challenge respondent no. 10’s appointment.
2. The authorities acted lawfully and within their discretion in awarding the license to respondent no. 10.

Implications

1. Clarity on Eligibility Criteria:
   • Applicants must meet all eligibility requirements at the time of application.
2. Limits on Legitimate Expectation:
   • The judgment clarifies that verbal assurances cannot override statutory provisions.
3. Judicial Review in Administrative Decisions:
   • Courts will intervene in administrative decisions only when there is evidence of arbitrariness, bias, or malafide intent.

Also Read – Supreme Court Expunges Adverse Remarks Against Additional District and Sessions Judge Over Bail Order; Criticism of Subordinate Judges Must Be Addressed Administratively, Not Through Judicial Orders