Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Vijay Kumar Nopani & Another vs State Of West Bengal & Others on 3 August, 2011
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
03.8.2011. W.P. 12502 (W) of 2011
Vijay Kumar Nopani & Another
Vs
State of West Bengal & Others
Dr. H. K. Saha Ray,
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray,
Mr. Somnath Chakraborty,
Mr. Sanjay Samaddar.
... For Petitioners
Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee,
Mr. Billwadal Bhattacharya,
Mr. Rajesh Ganguli.
... For Respondent No. 1
Mr. Asoke Kr. Banerjee. Ld. G. P. Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay, Mr. Samrat Mukherjee, ... For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 ,, Let affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record.
In the writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the intimation dated 19th July, 2011 issued by the General Manager, (IP), West Bengal Industrial Development Corporation Limited, the respondent no. 3 on the ground that the representation dated 17th May, 2011 has not been considered in its proper perspective and no hearing was granted, the respondents did not consider their alternative proposal and it is against the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Dr. Saha Ray, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the intimation dated 19th July, 2011 is illegal and unconstitutional.
2Mr. Banerjee, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 referring to Clause 29 of the General Terms and Conditions in the brochure, being annexure P-1 to the writ petition, has submitted that since it has been specifically stipulated that in case of any dispute with regard to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of the scheme/the Application Form/the Agreement, the final decision will rest with the Managing Director, WBIDC, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
In reply, Dr. Saha Ray in his usual fairness has submitted that in view of Clause 29 of the brochure, the matter may be referred to the Managing Director, WBIDC for adjudication.
In view of the fair suggestion made by Dr. Saha Ray, learned advocate for the petitioners and in view of Clause 29 of the brochure, let the matter be referred to the Managing Director, WBIDC for having the dispute, if any, settled which shall be done by passing a reasoned order within three weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving the petitioner no. 2 an opportunity of hearing.
It is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case and all points are left open to be dealt with by the Managing Director, WBIDC. At the time of hearing parties are at liberty to rely upon documents and judgments in support of their 3 respective contentions and the Managing Director, WBIDC in his reasoned order shall deal with the same.
Let status quo regarding the plot of land in question as on date be maintained for a period of three weeks. It is also made clear that the petitioners shall not initiate any further construction till the reasoned order is passed and communicated.
Since the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission without calling upon the respondents to file affidavits, allegations made are deemed not to have been admitted by them.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the appearing parties on priority basis.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.)