RANJIT KUMAR MURMU versus M/S LACHMI NARAYAN BHOMROJ & ORS.

RANJIT KUMAR MURMU versus M/S LACHMI NARAYAN BHOMROJ & ORS.

The appeal against the District Magistrate's order allocating kerosene quota was not maintainable before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner as Paragraph 10 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 permits appeals only in cases of refusal, cancellation, or suspension of licence under Paragraphs 8 and 9,...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ranjit Kumar Murmu; Respondent: M/s Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Kerosene Control, Licensing Jurisdiction, Appeals Under Statutory Orders
Administrative Law Kerosene Control Licensing Jurisdiction Appeals Under Statutory Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjit Kumar Murmu

Appellant

M/s Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Principal Secretary and Commissioner, Food and Supplies Department, Government of West Bengal, had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the order of District Magistrate under West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968.
  2. 2 Whether the impugned order was passed by the State Government or in the name of the State.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against the District Magistrate's order allocating kerosene quota was not maintainable before the Principal Secretary and Commissioner as Paragraph 10 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 permits appeals only in cases of refusal, cancellation, or suspension of licence under Paragraphs 8 and 9, not for allocation issues under Paragraph 11. The Principal Secretary lacked jurisdiction, and the High Court was justified in setting aside his order.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No infirmity or illegality found in the District Magistrate's order.
  • Affirmation of High Court's order setting aside Principal Secretary's decision.