Authority: Calcutta High Court (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction, Appellate Side), Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta
Order Date: 18.09.2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: M/S. D. N. Ghosh & Anr., represented by Mr. U. A. Dewan and Mr. Asif Dewan.
- Respondents: State of West Bengal, District Magistrate (Respondent No.2), and Private Respondent No.4 (Mr. Timir Baran Saha).
- The petition challenges District Magistrate order No. 36/MDM/23 dated during the period 16.08.2021 to 31.12.2022 (extended annually to 31.03.2023), which appointed the petitioners as carrying‑cum‑distribution agents for mid‑day meal food grains across six Gram Panchayats in Suti‑I Block.
- The petitioners’ assignment was abruptly reduced to three Gram Panchayats without any reason, alleged to be arbitrary and malafide.
- The three Gram Panchayats removed from the petitioners were reassigned to Private Respondent No.4, who originally handled 17 Gram Panchayats and was later increased to 20 Gram Panchayats.
- Subsequent orders by the District Magistrate: Order No. 43/MDM/24 reduced Private Respondent No.4’s allocation from twenty to twelve Gram Panchayats, yet retained the three Gram Panchayats previously taken from the petitioners; Order No. 36/MDM/25 showed similar treatment.
- Petitioners argued no adverse report existed against them and that the reduction was to favour Private Respondent No.4.
- Private Respondent No.4 contended his allocation was also reduced and that the petitioners’ geographical area was larger, seeking dismissal of the writ.
- The State, through counsel, submitted a report dated 01.09.2026, asserting the writ petition is not maintainable because the assignment periods are notified annually and each interval is governed by separate orders.
Final Outcome
- The Court finds the writ petition non‑maintainable and disposes of WPA 16445 of 2023 without order as to costs; any connected applications are also disposed of.
- The Court directs the petitioner to submit a detailed representation of grievances to Respondent No.2 (District Magistrate), who must decide the matter within four weeks of receipt and communicate the reasoned order to the parties within one week thereafter.
- The Court clarifies it has not examined the merits; Respondent No.2 shall decide independently in accordance with law.
- All interim orders, if any, are vacated.
- Parties must act on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official Calcutta High Court website; urgent Xerox certified copies will be supplied upon compliance with formalities.
Topics: Mid-Day Meal Allocation, Administrative Law