Sri Ajit Kumar Banik vs State Of W. B. & Ors on 10 June, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Sri Ajit Kumar Banik vs State Of W. B. & Ors on 10 June, 2010

Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta

                                                        1

010           WP 9428 (W) of 2004
      Sri Ajit Kumar Banik vs. State of W. B. & Ors.


      Mr. D.N. Roy
      Mrs. Munmun Tiwari ..For the petitioner.
      Mr. K.N. Nabi           ..For the respondent no. 4.

Let affidavit in opposition to this writ application filed by the respondent no. 4 and the supplementary affidavit to the writ application filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

This writ application is directed against an order as communicated under memo no. 1218- UD/9L-26/82 dated April 11, 2004 cancelling the provisional allotment of plot no. 42 in Block DN, Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata.

The provisional allotment of the aforesaid plot of land was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1982. The petitioner paid the entire salami in connection with the aforesaid allotment of the plot of land. Subsequently, by virtue of a communication dated March 20, 1996, the petitioner prayed for changing his nature of project from manufacturing bags and plastic goods to manufacturing synthetic erasers and adhesive gums. The respondent authority allowed the above prayer of the petitioner and directed him to furnish relevant documents in connection therewith. The petitioner further made the prayer for changing his project once again to manufacture F.H.P Motors. The respondent authority did not consider the above prayer of the petitioner and issued a show cause notice as to why the provisional allotment of the plot of land under reference could not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his reply dated November 10, 2003 to the above show cause notice showing the cause for changing the nature of the project for the second time. Ultimately, the impugned order was passed for cancelling of the provisional allotment under reference.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the prayer for changing the project of the business made by the petitioner for the second time was not considered by the respondent authority. I also find that the petitioner explained the situation which compelled him to take a decision for changing his project for the second time. But that was not considered by the respondent authority. Instead, the provisional allotment of the petitioner was cancelled.

In view of the above, I find that while passing the impugned order for cancellation of the provisional allotment of the plot of land in question, the respondent authority was under obligation to apply mind on the second proposal of the petitioner. Due to the above procedural impropriety, the impugned order has been vitiated and the same is quashed and set aside.

I direct the respondent authority to consider and dispose of the above representation dated September 26, 2001 (Annexure P-6 at page 27 to this writ application) of the petitioner in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The respondent authority is further directed to communicate his decision to the petitioner within two weeks thereof.

The writ application is thus disposed of.

There will be, however, no order as to costs.

Urgent photostate certified copy of this order be given to the parties, if applied for.

(Debasish Kar Gupta, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)