Calcutta High Court
Engineering Entrepreneurs vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 7 January, 2010
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
WP No. 142 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ENGINEERING ENTREPRENEURS Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Respondent
For Plaintiff/Petitioner :-Mr.L.C.Bihani, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.C.Bihani, Advocate For Defendant/Respondent :
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBASISH KAR GUPTA Date : 7th January, 2010.
The Court : - None appears on behalf of the respondent when the matter is called on. No accommodation is prayed for. Though no affidavit- in-opposition is filed, on behalf of the respondent in the matter, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that a copy of the affidavit- in-opposition has also been served upon the learned Advocate-on-Record appearing for the petitioner. In the above circumstances, let the xerox copy of the above affidavit-in-opposition furnished by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner be kept on record. Let the affidavit-in-reply to the same be also kept on record.
The backdrop of this case in a nut shell is as follows:-
By virtue of an offer letter dated September 16, 1982 a plot of land measuring about 15 cottahs lying and situate in Sector IV/V of Bidhannagore (Salt Lake Town Ship) was proposed to be leased out in favour of the petitioner firm for a 2 period of 999 years on compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.37,500/- only towards 50% of the Selami in favour of the respondent authority on December 22, 1982 as a token of acceptance of the above proposal. Thereafter plot no 8 in Block No.DN Sector V, Salt Lake, Kolkata was allotted in favour of the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to pay the balance selami within the period stipulated in the aforesaid offer letter. Consequent thereupon the respondent authority informed the petitioner by a communication dated February 16, 1995 that the offer under reference had been cancelled automatically due to non-fulfillment of the conditions of payment of balance selami within the stipulated period.
The petitioner firm submitted a representation dated April 28, 1995 to the respondent no.3 for restoration of the allotment under reference upon compliance of formalities as required under law, if any. The respondent authority did not pay any heed to such representation of the petitioner firm. The petitioner filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 2402 of 1999 (Re: Engineering Enterpreneurs vs. State of West Bengal & Ors] challenging the inaction on the part of the respondent and the same was disposed of on November 17, 2003 with the following direction:-
"In view of the fact that the plot of land was once allotted to the petitioner-firm and that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay salami or premium at the current rate, this Court disposes of this writ-application in the manner following:-
1)The petitioner's request for restoration of allotment will be treated as a fresh application for allotment of the said plot of land, if the said plot of land is still available and the same has not been allotted to anybody else;3
2]If the said plot of land is still available, the respondent concerned will intimate the petitioner-firm within one month from the date of communication of this order if the firm is to comply with any formalities. Upon receipt of such letter/intimation, the petitioner-firm will comply with the formalities as required within the time specified in the said letter/intimation.
3]If the petitioner complies with the necessary formalities, his request for allotment of the said plot of land will be considered in accordance with law; and 4]The above whole exercise should be completed within a period of 4 months from the date of communication of this order.
There will be no order as to costs.
All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking.
Sd/ Pradipta Ray,J"
Subsequently, the respondent filed an application for recalling of the above order dated November 17, 2003, but the same was dismissed on August 17, 2004 for default. The respondent did not take any step for consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of the order dated November 17, 2003 passed in W.P. No. 2402 of 1999. Hence this writ application.
Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also considering the materials on record, I find that the order dated November 17, 2003 passed in W.P. No;. 2402 of 1999 has reached its finality. In terms of the above order the respondents were under obligation to treat the representation of the petitioner dated April 20, 1995 as a fresh application for allotment of the plot under reference in the event the above plot of land was still available, or the same had not been allotted to anybody else. The respondents were further under obligation to intimate the petitioner firm in the event of availability of the plot in question the 4 formalities which were required to be complied with. But no information was furnished to the petitioner firm.
It appears from the averments made in sub-paragraph (f) and (g) of paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondent that the respondent authority could not consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioner as a fresh application in view of the guidelines enumerated in various circulars since 1991. Under those circulars, according to the averments made in those sub-paragraphs, advertisements in leading daily newspapers followed by lottery was the procedure to be followed for consideration of the claim of the petitioner in respect of the plot in question and for proper adjudication of the case those averments are quoted below:
"f) It is necessary to say that the respondent authorities are duly bound to follow the guidelines as enumerated by various circulars since 1991 for distribution of plots of land in Salt Lake by the Government of West Bengal.
According to the said policy proposal, all plots shall be disposed of through advertisement in the leading daily newspapers and thereafter by lottery and in view of the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the authorities are duly bound to consider the application of the petitioners as a fresh application if the Government decides to advertise for allotment of plots of lands. But no such advertisement has been issued in the newspaper till date and as such the question of consideration of fresh application of the petitioners could not be done by; the respondent authorities in excess of their jurisdiction.
g) It is stated that the Urban Development Department has drawn up certain procedural formalities to dispose of the application for allotment of land in Bidhannagar and such application for non-residential land are placed before the committee headed by the Chief Secretary and upon receiving the recommendation of the committee, on such applications, approval of the Departmental Minister/ Chief Minister is received on the same for disposal of the application from the private sector advertisement which required to be issued in the leading daily newspaper and in case of 5 more than one application, disposal is made through lottery. This has been policy of disposal of land in Bidhannagar (Salt Lake Township) till 1999." In view of uncontroverted statements with regard to the present status of the plot of land-in-question as appears from the statement made in paragraph 19 of this writ application as also taking into account the averments made in the sub- paragraphs of the affidavit-in-opposition referred to hereinabove, it appears that the plot of land in question is still lying vacant. Therefore, the respondent, not only failed to comply with the direction given in the order dated November 17, 2003 in W.P. No. 2402 of 1999 for considering the representation of the petitioner as a fresh application for amendment of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner firm, but also failed to comply with the other portion of the above order to consider the same in accordance with law.
The stand taken by the respondent authority to sit idle keeping their finger crossed in the matter of complying with the order dated November 17, 2003 passed in W.P. No. 2402 of 1999 in the garb of alleged various circulars cannot be sustained in law. That stand is misconceived. Neither any circular is available on record of this case, nor any assistance is extended to this Court on behalf of the respondents to arrive at a conclusion with regard to the above claim of existence of the circulars as alleged.
In view of the above observation, the respondent authority is directed to treat the representation of the petitioner firm dated April 28, 1995 as a fresh application for allotment of plot no.DN-8, Sector -V, Bidhannagore (Salt Lake) Kolkata-91 in favour of the petitioner firm. Keeping the greater interest of public in mind, I give another opportunity to the respondent to intimate the petitioner firm within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. the formalities which 6 are to be complied with by the petitioner firm as a pre-conditions for considering the application. In the event, any formality is informed to be complied with, the petitioner firm is directed to comply with the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of such direction. The respondent authority is also directed to arrive at a final decision with regard to the allotment of plot in question in favour of the petitioner firm in terms of order dated November 17, 2003 passed in W.P. No. 2402 of 1999 within a period of 30 days from the date of compliance of formalities, if any; by the petitioner firm. If the petitioner is not informed to comply with any formality, the respondent authority must arrive at a decision in terms of the above direction with regard to the allotment of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner firm within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.
This writ petition stands disposed of.
There will, however, no order as to cost.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, J.) dg/