Calcutta High Court
Lgw Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 8 June, 2010
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
(CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)
ORIGINAL SIDE
W.P. No. 153 of 2009
LGW Limited & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
CORAM : The Hon'ble Justice Mr. Tapen Sen
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Advocate
Mr. Dwaipayan Sengupta, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Prafulla Kr. Ghosh, Advocate
Heard on : 7.7.09, 8.7.09, 20.8.09, 25.8.09, 7.1.10,
24.2.10, 25.2.10, 5.3.10, 8.3.10
C.A.V. on : 8.3.2010
Judgment Delivered on : 8th June, 2010
Tapen Sen, J.: This Writ Petition is directed against an Order
dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Chief Secretary to the
Government of West Bengal) as contained in Annexure- P/17, whereby and
whereunder, he directed that if an Advertisement is made seeking Applications
from interested parties for the plot of land in question, the Petitioner No. 1
Company can also submit its Application which can be considered by the
Committee and if the Company is found to be similarly placed with other
companies, then it could be given preference and considered for allotment of the
plot of land subject to other conditions made by the Government in that regard.
In other words, the Respondent No. 2 did not pass any Order allotting the plot in
question to the Petitioners.
2 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
2. The short facts are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a
registered company under the Companies Act 1956 and is a merchant exporter of
various goods to foreign countries including Bangladesh. The Petitioner No. 2 is
its Managing Director. According to the Petitioners, the Govt. of West Bengal had
caused an Advertisement to be published in various local newspapers for
allotment of a plot of land for commercial purposes on 9.2.1987 vide Annexure-
P/1. The Petitioners applied for a plot of land in Salt Lake for construction of a
composite centre.
3. According to the Petitioners, the Govt. of West
Bengal had all along been allotting plots of land in the Salt Lake area to persons
merely on the basis of an application made or on the request made to the Chief
Minister of West Bengal and such land used to be distributed pursuant to the
whims of Ministers and Administrators and there was no policy for determining
the merit of the Applications for the grant of such land. It is alleged that it was
because of the absence of any policy, that all distributions of land were tainted
with favouritism. Some examples of such alleged favouritism have been given in
paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition and it has been stated that none of the
allotments made to them (Respondent No. 7 to 10) were made pursuant to open
Advertisement. However, in the absence of materials or evidences in proof of such
alleged favouritism and also in view of there being no prayer for cancellation of
such allotment, this Court is not inclined to go into those allotments.
3 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
4. It is the further case of the Petitioners that since
the Petitioner No. 1 had applied pursuant to an Advertisement after satisfying all
conditions, the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal, by his letter dated
3.6.1997, requested the Special Engineer, SLR & D Circle (Respondent No. 5) to
locate a plot of land measuring 6 to 8 Cottahs in Salt Lake for allotment to the
Petitioner No. 1 for construction of a composite centre. This letter is Annexure-
P/3.
5. The Respondent No. 5, by his letter dated
19.11.1997, wrote to the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development,
Govt. of West Bengal, in reply to the letter dated 3.6.1997, stating that Plot No.
KB-20 in Sector-III, Bidhan Nagar, measuring 8 Cottahs as per the Report of the
Executive Engineer (Design), SLRD, may be allotted to the Petitioner No. 1 for
construction of its composite centre.
6. Nothing happened and therefore, by letter dated
16.10.2000 (Annexure- P/5), the Petitioners wrote the Principal Secretary and
requested him to take necessary action in the matter pertaining to the formalities
for allotment.
7. In spite of this, there was continued silence and
finally the Petitioners filed their 1st Writ Petition before this Court which was
registered as W.P. No. 10 of 2001. An Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice
P.C. Ghose) by his Lordship's Order dated 11.9.1992, disposed of the same by
directing the Deputy Secretary (Respondent No. 4), Department of Urban
4 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
Development, to treat the Writ Petition as a representation and pass a reasoned
Order within 6 weeks from the date of communication of the Order.
8. Thereafter, by an Order dated 10.10.2002
(Annexure- P/6), the Finance Secretary to the Govt. of West Bengal passed a
reasoned Order wherein, while referring to a Guideline framed by the Govt. on
7.12.1999, rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that as per
the approved Guideline, land in Salt Lake for commercial purposes can be
distributed only on the basis of Applications received through an open
Advertisement published in national daily newspapers. Thereafter, the Petitioners
filed their 2nd Writ Petition against the said Order dated 10.10.2002 vide W.P.
No. 340 of 2003.
9. By a Judgment dated 29.6.2004 (Annexure-P-7),
the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal disposed of the said Writ Petition with the
following relevant observations, which, for convenience and understanding, are
being divided into subparagraphs but without changing the language used
therein so that each of his Lordship's observations are carefully understood by
all who read this judgment.
a) "Now the question which falls for consideration is whether the
order dated 10.10.2002 which is under challenge is sustainable or not."
b) "Perusing the Order dated 10.10.2002, I find from the letters
dated 3.6.97 and 19.11.97 an Application for allotment of plot of land at
Salt Lake for commercial purpose was made by the petitioner No. 1
otherwise the name of the Petitioner could not have figured in the letter
dated 3.6.1997 with the heading subject - "Allotment of land at Salt Lake
of LGW Ltd." "
c) "Regarding the applicability of the revised guidelines dated
7.12.1999 it should be noted that the Petitioner made an application
before the issuance of revised guidelines dated 7.12.99 for allotment of
land in Salt Lake for commercial purpose."
5 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
d) "The Petitioners have contended that allotment of land for
commercial purpose to others have been made either on request or on the
basis of applications prior to the issuance of revised guidelines . Though
it appears that the petitioner was on the same footing, yet its
representation was rejected by the order dated 10.10.2002 as there was
no scope for allotment "at this stage" in view of the revised guidelines of
the Government."
e) "It has not been stated in the order impugned dated 10.10.2002
whether the revised guidelines have any retrospective effect or not.
Therefore the rejection of the representation of the Petitioner was not
justified and the order dated 10.10.2002 cannot be sustained."
10. Having made the aforesaid observations, the
Hon'ble Judge held that the rejection of the representation by Order dated
10.10.2002 was not justified and accordingly, quashed the same.
11. Having quashed the said Order dated 10.10.2002,
the said Hon'ble Single Judge directed the Principal Secretary, Department of
Urban Development, (Respondent No. 4 therein), to pass a reasoned order within
a period of 8 weeks and while passing such an Order, to first take into account the
revised guidelines dated 7.12.1999 on the issue as to whether those guidelines
have retrospective operation or not and if, the same did not have retrospective
operation, then to consider the representation in accordance with the guidelines
prevailing prior to 7.12.1999 as was applied to other Applicants whose list was
annexed to the Writ Petition. However, if the revised guidelines had retrospective
operation then it should clearly state whether there was open Advertisement, as,
the Order dated 10.10.2002 stated that subsequently, the State Government
framed the revised guidelines dated 7.12.1999.
12. Thereafter on 2.9.2004, the Principal Secretary
gave a hearing and an Order was passed on 30.9.2004 (Annexure- P/9) by which,
6 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
according to the Petitioners, the Respondent No. 3, having failed to find any
avenue for denying the prayer of the Petitioner, raised "new excuses" which had
not been raised in the earlier Order dated 10.10.2002. Since the Petitioners have
not stated as to what these "new excuses" were, it would therefore be relevant to
quote the operative portions of the said Order dated 30.9.2004 appearing at
pages 100-101 being para 25 of the same which reads as follows:-
"25. The important question raised by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal
in the operative portion of His Lordship's order passed on 29.6.2004 are
being answered hereinbelow:-
(1) The revised guidelines do not have any retrospective effect on the face of
it. But once the new guidelines came into effect and where the
guidelines are silent about the old cases it is necessary that in respect
of the old cases where no final allotment letter was given to the
applicants of the plots in Salt Lake formally by the State Govt. those
cases should be treated as closed. Otherwise, the old cases like the case
of the petitioner-company might continue to come up for consideration
before the State Govt. as a result of which the basic necessity of
following the guidelines dated 7.12.1999 would remain unfulfilled
and/or would be violated. This situation is not desirable;
(2) The undersigned is of the view that such normal cases like the case of
the petitioner-company was rightly not considered for further action on
or after 21.08.1997. Furthermore, the petitioner-company did not
submit the project report along with the application for plot and also
that this Deptt. could not locate the plot before 21.08.1997. The
petitioner-company has enclosed a list of allottees to the writ petition.
In general, these cases were old cases. The Govt. orders were issued in
those cases before the revised guidelines were issued. The petitioner-
company cannot and should not press for the allotment on that basis as
the cited cases are not similarly circumstanced;
(3) After the revised guidelines were framed on 7.12.1999, some
commercial/industrial (non-residential) plots were allotted through
open advertisement, a list of the allottees are reproduced below:-
1. Confederation of Indian Industry
For Centre of Excellence - CP-2 - one acre
.........2. Ustad
2. Ustad Inayat Khan Music
Foundation (Sitar) - DD-27A - 12 cottahs
(Ultimately the above organisation
did not take the land)
3. Speciality Restaurant
(P) Ltd. - DD-27 -
4. Reliance Infocom - DD-4 - 6 acres
5. Entreprenourship
7 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
Development Institute - IB-194 - 10 cottahs
(promoted by Bengal National Chambers
of Commerce & Industry)
26. Another point is required to be dealt with here is the annexure-P1 of the
writ petition. Here, the petitioner-company has drawn the attention of the
advertisement in respect of the godown plots only. Here, the undersigned
mentions that the godown plots are not treated as commercial/industrial
plots. This is a separate category of plot. Besides, the petitioner-company
could not and should not refer its application for any godown plot, which
might have been made long back, for construction of its own composite
centre and therefore this advertisement has no bearing with the present
writ petition. Furthermore, this is a very old case and such advertisement
was published in February, 1987.
27. In view of the above position and due to the reasons explained
hereinbefore, I consider that the claim of the petitioner-company does not
have any merit/basis and I accordingly reject the claim of the petitioner-
company for allotment of the plot of land at Salt Lake. However, the
petitioner-company will be at liberty to apply for a plot of land when any
such advertisement is issued for consideration of allotment of land for
similar purpose.
28. the order is dictated today i.e. 30.09.2004.
let a copy of this order be sent to the petitioner-company and their
counsel."
(Quoted)
13. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned Order, the
Petitioners filed the 3rd Writ Petition, being W.P. 958 of 2005 in which an
Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by one Amal Kumar Das , O.S.D and ex officio
Deputy Secretary, Deptt. of Urban Development. This Affidavit-in-opposition is
Annexure-P/10 and Paragraphs 2(e), (f) and (g) thereof read as follows:-
(e) "It is absolutely clear that both these letters referred to here by the
petitioner-company are purely an intra-departmental exercise and further
action about asking the project report, its viability and source of funding,
etc. were not even initiated. In view of the aforesaid position no formal
letter of offer of allotment was issued to the petitioner-company at any
stage by the Govt. Further, since no formal offer of allotment of the said
plot has been made in favour of the petitioner-company the said
petitioner-company cannot claim the allotment on the basis of doctrine of
legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel and for the same reason
the question of violation of Articles 14, 19(A) and 300 (A) of the
Constitution of India and question of sustaining irreparable loss and
injury by not allotting the said plot to the petitioner-company do not arise
in this case. In fact there was no correspondence from U.D. Department
to the petitioner-company.
8 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
f) In the meantime a Cabinet Decision was taken approving the revised
guidelines for allotment of plots in Salt Lake. On the basis of the Cabinet
Decision, Order No. 5607-UD/N-7/99 dated 07.12.1999 was issued.
g) Once the new guidelines came into effect and where the guidelines are
silent about the old cases it is necessary that in respect of the old cases,
where no final allotment letter was issued to the applicants of the plots in
Salt Lake formally by the State Govt. those cases should be treated as
closed. Otherwise, the old cases like the case of the petitioner-company
might continue to come up for consideration before the State Govt. as a
result of which the basis necessity of following the guidelines dated
07.12.1999 would remain unfulfilled and/or would be violated."
(Quoted)
14. By a Judgment dated 24.9.2007, an Hon'ble Single
Judge dismissed the said 3rd Writ Petition after observing that "it appears that no
application was made by the Petitioner". The relevant portions of the Order dated
24.9.2007 passed in W.P. No. 958 of 2005 read as follows:-
"5. Conclusion.
5.1 Having considered the submissions of the parties in appears that no
application was made by the petitioner. A prayer was made to the Chief
Minister to make such allotment. On the basis of the said request or prayer
an inter-departmental inquiry was made. No letter of allotment has been
issued to the petitioner nor any promise held out. Therefore the petitioner
cannot seek allotment as a matter of right.
5.2 Each of the orders passed is restricted to the issues raised before it. By
the first order dated 11th September 2001 the respondent no. 3 as directed
to consider the petitioner's representation. On consideration the guidelines
of 1997 was made applicable. This was challenged and according to the
Court this could not have been made applicable as the December 1997
guidelines could not have been given retrospective effect and therefore the
order dated 10th October, 2002 was set aside. The respondent no. 3 was
directed once again to reconsider the petitioner's case and the same was
done and an order dated 30th September, 2006 passed.
5.3 The order dated 30.09.2006 has dealt with each of the issues set out in
the order dated 29.06.2004. The reasonings given in the order dated
30.09.2006 are sound and calls for no interference as the plots allotted are
pursuant to advertisement. The practice of allotting plots in the absence of
advertisement has also been deprecated and the decision in the case of
Tarak Singh & Ors. -vs.- Jyoti Basu & Ors. reported in (2005) 1 SCC P. 201
has been followed. The decision taken on 11.02.1993 has not been made
the basis for rejection of the petitioner's claim and is in fact not relevant.
The revised guidelines of 1999 have rightly been held to be inapplicable to
the instant case.
5.4 The representation made or orders passed cannot give the petitioner
any right for less right to enforce the same. The process adopted by the
9 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
petitioner seeking allotment with a request to the Chief Minister is
unknown in law and in case allotment is made will be tainted with
favouritism. This is substantiated by Tarak Singh's case (Supra).
5.5 The case of the petitioner cannot be equated with that of those who
have been allotted lands as they are not similarly circumstanced. The
petitioner lacked the initial ingredient for allotment viz. Filing an
application when an advertisement was published and this cannot be
rectified by orders of Court.
5.6 Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons the writ petition fails and no
order can be passed on this application and as accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- N. Patherya, J.
( PATHERYA, J.)"
(Quoted)
15. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order, the Petitioners filed an Appeal being APO No. 430 of 2007 and by Judgment dated 6.11.2008, a Division Bench comprising of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.K. Chattopadhyay sitting with the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tapan Mukherjee, did not accept the finding/observation of the Hon'ble Single Judge who had passed the Order dated 24.9.2007 in W.P. No. 958 of 2005 (portions whereof have been quoted above) and which was to the effect in Para-5.1 therein that no application was filed by the Appellants. The Division Bench also observed that the Respondent authorities had not assigned any reason as to why, even after locating Plot No. KB-20, they did not make the allotment ultimately. Accordingly, the Order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Principal Secretary was quashed and the Chief Secretary was again Directed to consider the claim of the Appellants within six weeks by adopting the same yardstick as had been applied to other Plot-holders at the relevant point of time. The relevant portions of the observations of Division Bench are as follows:
"Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, learned Counsel representing the State- respondents urged before this court that interdepartmental 10 W.P. No. 153 of 2009 communications cannot confer any right on the appellants herein with regard to allotment of the plot.
However, from the aforesaid interdepartmental communications we find that the respondent authorities admittedly, considered the claim of the appellants for allotment of plot of land in the Salt Lake area and ultimately found a vacant plot for the purpose of allotment in favour of the said appellants in the year 1997. The said plot was, however, not allotted in favour of the appellants without assigning any reason by the competent authority.
In the aforesaid circumstances, we are to examine what prompted the respondent authorities to deny allotment in favour of the appellants in spite of entertaining the prayer of the said appellants for allotment of the plot and also locating a vacant plot for allotment in favour of the appellants.
Unfortunately, no reason has been disclosed by the respondent authorities before this Court explaining why after locating the aforesaid vacant plot bearing the number KB-20 in Sector-III of Bidhannagar was ultimately not allotted to the appellants at the relevant time. The reasons furnished by the Principal Secretary in the order dated 10th October, 2002 were admittedly, quashed by the order dated 29th June, 2004 passed by Soumitra Pal, J. in the writ petition being W.P. No. 340 of 2003. The subsequent order passed by the Principal Secretary on 30th September, 2004 was challenged before this Hon'ble court by the appellants in the writ petition being W.P. No. 958 of 2005, which was finally disposed of by the judgment and order under appeal dated 24th September, 2007. In the aforesaid reasoned order dated 30th September, 2004, the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal assigned the reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellants for allotment of the plot of land at Salt Lake. The relevant portions from the said reasoned order are quoted hereunder:-
"24. It is absolutely clear that both these letters as referred to by the petitioner-company are purely intradepartmental exercise and further action about the project report, its viability and source of funding etc. were not at all touched even. In view of the aforesaid position no formal letter of offer of allotment was issued to the petitioner-company at any stage by the Govt.................................................................
26. Another point is required to be dealt with here is the annexure P-1 of the writ petition. Here, the petitioner-company has drawn the attention of the advertisement in respect of the godown plots only. Here, the undersigned mentions that the godown plots are not treated as commercial/industrial plots. This is a separate category of plot. Besides, the petitioner- company could not and should not refer its application for any godown plot, which might have been made long back, for construction of its own composite centre and therefore this advertisement has no bearing with the present writ petition. Furthermore, this is a very old case and such advertisement was published in February, 1987".
The Principal Secretary, however, did not explain in the aforesaid reasoned order why steps were taken by the competent authority to locate 11 W.P. No. 153 of 2009 a plot for allotment to the appellants for construction of company's own composite centre and ultimately, Plot No. KB-20 in Sector-III of Bidhannagar was located for allotment in favour of the said appellants, which have been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid interdepartmental communications dated 3rd June, 1997 and 19th November, 1997 respectively.
Scrutinising the order under appeal, we find that the learned Single Judge observed:
"5.5......................The petitioner lacked the initial ingredient for allotment viz. Filing an application when an advertisement was published and this cannot be rectified by orders of Court."
The aforesaid observations are not based on proper appreciation of facts, which we have already mentioned hereinbefore.
The learned Single Judge has also referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarak Singh & another vs. Jyoti Basu & others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 201, which, in our opinion, is not at all applicable in the facts of the present case as the appellants herein have undisputedly applied for a plot of land in the Salt Lake area pursuant to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper.
For the aforementioned reasons, neither the reasoned order dated 30th September, 2004 passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of West Bengal nor the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge on 24th September, 2007 can be sustained. Therefore, we quash the order dated 30th September, 2004 passed by the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
We direct the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to consider the claim of the appellants regarding allotment of plot of land in Salt Lake area particularly Plot No. KB-20 in Sector-III of Bidhannagar, which was located for allotment in favour of the appellants for construction of company's own composite centre and mentioned in the Memo dated 19th November, 1997 of the Special Engineer, Salt Lake R. & D. circle without any further delay but positively within six weeks from the date of communication of this order following the same yardstick as had been applied to the other plot holders at the relevant time and also taking note of the observations made by us in this judgment. The Chief Secretary will also grant an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the appellants herein and pass a reasoned order within the time mentioned hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands allowed.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there will be, however, no order as to costs.
Let xerox copies of this judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be supplied to the parties herein on undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the same immediately.
(PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.) TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J.
I agree.
12 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
(TAPAN MUKHERJEE, J.)"
(Quoted)
16. It appears that thereafter and in pursuance of the Order of the Division Bench, the impugned Order has been passed. In the impugned Order, the Chief Secretary has totally bypassed the specific findings of the Division Bench and has skirted the issues by opening new arguments which would be evident from the following paragraphs, though he admits that the Petitioners did submit an application seeking allotment for a plot of land and an exercise was made to locate a vacant plot of land. The relevant portions of the Order of the Chief Secretary reads as follows:
"it also appears from the records submitted that a communication was sent by the Department to Special Engineer, SLR&D Circle to locate a plot of land measuring 6 to 8 cottahs of land for allotment to LGW Ltd and submit a report regarding availability of land. In response to that , the Executive Engineer (Design), SLR &D Circle sent a communication indicating availability of plot no. KB-20, Sector- III, Salt Lake measuring about 8 cottahs for allotment to LGW Ltd thereafter. However, no communication was sent to the applicant i.e. LGW Ltd. asking for submission of project report in respect of their claim along with other informatioin such as its viability, source of funding etc. As per the existing order at that point of time, for considering allotment of commercial plots, the allottee would be required to indicate specific use of the plot and ask to submit project report along with other details regarding financial viability, source of funding, construction of plant and their precise use. Therefore it seems that after ascertaining the availability of plots no further action in respect of the application was taken by the Government at that time. As has been highlighted in the order itself, subsequent to 1999, a detail policy was framed regarding distribution of commercial plots and no allotment was made on individual application. I have also informed that most of the allotments stated in the paper book vide page 36 to 41 were made earlier to 1997. The Hon'ble Court in its order, had made observation regarding the fact of submission of application by the appellant, the exercise undertaken regarding to locate a plot of land and the non-transparency in procedure of allotment prior to 1999 and the fact Government have not assigned any reason for not allotting the plot to the company.
In the backdrop of the fact stated above, a view needs to be taken in regard to the claim of the petitioner seeking a plot of land based on his application. As the things stand, the company did submit an application seeking allotment for a plot of land and an exercise was 13 W.P. No. 153 of 2009 made to locate a vacant plot of land. However, the claim of the petitioner that the said application was submitted in pursuance to the advertisement issued in newspaper in 1987 cannot be accepted. The advertisement of 1987 sought application for land for specific purposes and within specific timeframe. Neither the application was made for construction of cement or steel godown nor it was submitted within the due date mentioned in the advertisement i.e. 24-02-87. Hence the application submitted by the company can only be treated as a suo- motu application seeking a plot of land.
The exact reason for locating the plot of land could not be ascertained in the absence of the original records. However one can only presume that before asking a company to submit the project report and other relevant details to examine the merit of its application, the availability of plot has to be ascertained first. Otherwise it would be an infructuous exercise. Apparently the communications to ascertain the availability of plot was an exercise in that context. However, the matter was not processed further as there was no further communication seeking project report, details of financial viability and other documents which are required to be examined prior to allotment of a commercial plot. Thereafter, in December, 1999, a policy for allotment of commercial plot was laid down and all allotments are being made by the State Government in accordance with the said policy after 1999. The Hon'ble Court in its order has highlighted the need for a transparent procedure which is now being practiced rather than the descretionary allotment made prior to 1999. Under this circumstances, a view needs to be taken whether it would be fair to consider allotment of a specific plot in favour of a company simply because he had submitted an application for land and there are two communications to ascertain the availability of plot for allotment in their favour.
From the submission made during the hearing it appears that the company is an export oriented company and over the years has been adjudged as an Export House and they need a place to display their products and create other facilities. However, it is also possible that there are other similar placed companies in need of land for such commercial activities. It is reported that plot no. KB-20, Sector-III, Salt Lake measuring nearly 8 cottahs is still vacant. Therefore, I feel it would be in the fitness of things, that in terms of existing procedure an advertisement is made in the newspapers seeking application from interested parties for this specific plot of land in response to which the company could submit application with relevant details. The said application can be considered by the Committee on own merit. If the Company is similarly placed along with other companies then it could be given preference and considered for allotment of the plot of land subject to other stipulation made by the Government in this regard.
I order accordingly.
(A.K. Deb) Chief Secretary Government of West Bengal"
(Quoted but emphasis by bold fonts above is of this Court) 14 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
17. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed and in Paragraph-6 thereof, yet another point has been taken and which is with regard to the Application of the Petitioner having been submitted in the year 1996 pursuant to an Advertisement made in 1987 and the said Application having been made before the then Chief Minister. The statement made in Paragraph-6 of the Affidavit-in-opposition clearly mentions that it is wrong to say that the Petitioner had applied pursuant to any advertisement published on 9.2.1987. According to them, the last date for submitting the Application was 24.2.1987 and this would be apparent from Annexure-P/1 but the Petitioner submitted his Application in 1996 directly before the then Chief Minister, Govt. of West Bengal and therefore, the letters dated 3.6.1997 and 19.11.1997 were passed.
This is the 4th Writ Petition after the Order of the Division Bench. It seems that each time, the Respondents have something new up their sleeve to reject.
18. In the teeth of the judgment of the Division Bench read with the observations of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal, this Court is of the view that it is too late in the day for the Government to come up with such a plea taking the point that such an Application cannot be accepted . In the opinion of this Court, the attempt on the part of the concerned Respondent in passing the Order dated 31.12.2008 is only a method adopted for finding a way to disobey and ignore the specific observations of the Division Bench without answering the questions raised by Justice Soumitra Pal. The Division Bench had clearly observed that the inter-departmental communications prove that the 15 W.P. No. 153 of 2009 Respondents had considered the claim of the Petitioners in the year 1997 but the same were neither given effect to nor allotment made without any reason at all. In this context, the most important observations of the Division Bench has also been totally ignored and the same, at the risk of repetition, is once again quoted below:
"We direct the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal to consider the claim of the appellants regarding allotment of plot of land in Salt Lake area particularly Plot No. KB-20 in Sector-III of Bidhannagar, which was located for allotment in favour of the appellants for construction of company's own composite centre and mentioned in the Memo dated 19th November, 1997 of the Sepcial Engineer, Salt Lake R. & D. circle without any further delay but positively within six weeks from the date of communication of this order following the same yardstick as had been applied to the other plot holders at the relevant time and also taking note of the observations made by us in this judgment. The Chief Secretary will also grant an opportunity of hearing to the representative of the appellants herein and pass a reasoned order within the time mentioned hereinabove."
(Quoted but emphasis by bold fonts is of this Court)
19. The Chief Secretary has not considered the observations of the Division Bench inasmuch as he has not followed the same yardstick which was applied to other plot holders at the relevant point of time nor has he bothered to consider that even the earlier Hon'ble Single Judge, namely Hon'ble Mr. Justice Soumitra Pal had quashed the Order of rejection in which his Lordship had clearly held that although the Petitioners were on the same footing as that of others, yet its Representation was rejected on 10.10.2002. Moreover, the question as to whether a revised guideline can have a retrospective effect or not, has not been dealt with.
20. It thus appears that each time the Respondents have found excuses and each time the Orders of this Court have been ignored repeatedly without bothering to even honour the specific observations made by it. 16 W.P. No. 153 of 2009 This Court is the highest Court of this State and such attitude on the part of the Government is not only a clear example of ignoring the mandate of the High Court but amounts to totally disregarding its Judgments. In fact, the impugned Order not only smacks of disobedience but it is a clear example of virtually showing an arrogant thumb on the face of the High Court. This Court therefore is of the view that enough opportunities have been given to the State but even then, they are not at all inclined to regard the Orders passed by the High Court nor are they inclined to allot Plot No. KB-20 which was located for such allotment by themselves vide Letter dated 19.11.1997 referred to above. Under such circumstances, though this Court is prima facie of the view that the Respondents are in contempt of the Order of the Division Bench, is also of the view that no useful purpose will be served, at this stage, to take the Respondents to task because rightly or wrongly, they have cleverly passed an Order "allegedly" in terms of the Order of the Division Bench though not in strict compliance thereof.
21. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that no further remands are necessary to be made and instead, a mandatory Order should be passed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are now directed to make available the Plot in question to the Petitioners immediately and forthwith but not later than a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. With the aforesaid observations and Directions, this Writ Petition is allowed.
There shall, however, be no Order as to costs.
17 W.P. No. 153 of 2009
Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Certified copy of this Judgment, may be given/issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.
(Tapen Sen, J.) ............June, 2010 S.B. A.F.R./N.A.F.R.