Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

(Sagar Hosiery Milla & Ors vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.) on 16 March, 2022

Author: Suvra Ghosh

Bench: Suvra Ghosh

1
jdt.




   16.03.2022
      jb.

                               W.P.A. 19029 of 2007
                (Sagar Hosiery Milla & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.)

                (CAN 3 of 2015, CAN 4 of 2016, CAN 5 of 2022, CAN 6 of 2022, CAN 7 of
                2022 and CAN 8 of 2022)

                   Mr. N. C. Behani
                   Mr. Suchayan Banerjee
                                    ... For the Petitioners/Applicants

                   Mr. Chandi Charan De
                   Mr. Anirban Sarkar
                                 ... For the State



                       Affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of

                the petitioners is taken on record.



                                             Re: CAN 3 of 2015
                                                      &
                                                 CAN 4 of 2016


                       Copy of the applications being CAN 3 of

                2015     and     CAN     4    of    2016     supplied        by     the

                applicants are taken on record and be treated

                as original.



                       It is submitted by the learned advocate

                for the applicants that both the applications

                have      become        infructuous.            As     such,        the

                applications are disposed of.
                              2




                      Re: CAN 5 of 2022

                             &
                         CAN 6 of 2022
                             &
                         CAN 7 of 2022
                             &
                         CAN 8 of 2022


       The applicants in CAN 6 of 2022 pray for

substitution     in     place    of    the    2nd    and     3rd

petitioners on the ground that in terms of

the     supplementary        deed      of         partnership

executed on 9th April, 2012, the applicants

have stepped into the shoes of the 2nd and 3rd

petitioners     and    are   entitled        to     carry    on

business of partnership after their demise.

The applicants have also sought condonation

of     delay     in     filing        the     substitution

application (CAN 6 of 2022)



       Good grounds being shown, the delay in

filing the substitution application being CAN

6 of 2022 is condoned.



       CAN 8 of 2022 is thus allowed.



       The applicants be substituted in place

of    the   2nd and    3rd petitioners       in     the     writ

petition.
                                 3




      Cause title of the petition be amended

accordingly.



      CAN 6 of 2022 is allowed.



      The applicants in CAN 5 of 2022 pray for

restoration    of      the    writ    petition    which     was

dismissed by order dated 3rd January, 2019.

The    applicants            have     also      prayed      for

condonation       of         delay      in      filing      the

restoration application.



      In   view    of   good        grounds    shown   by   the

applicants        the        delay      in      filing      the

restoration application is condoned.



      CAN 7 of 2022 is thus allowed.



      Sufficient grounds being made out by the

applicants as to their non-appearance before

the   Court       on     the        relevant     date,      the

restoration application being CAN 5 of 2022

is allowed.



      The order dated 3rd January, 2019 passed

in W.P.A. 19029 of 2007 is set aside.
                                     4




        W.P.A. 19029 of 2007 is restored to its

file and number.



                     Re: W.P.A. 19029 of 2007

        Liberty is granted to the petitioners to

add     Joint    Secretary,             Department          of     Urban

Development          and     Municipal           Affairs         as    6th

respondent in the writ petition. Cause-title

of the writ petition be amended accordingly.

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the O.S.D. & E.O., Deputy Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, being the respondent No. 3, on 4th May, 2007 turning down the prayer of the petitioners for handing over the possession of the plot in question.

The original petitioners were granted lease in respect of the plot in question by virtue of registered deed dated 19th December, 1994 and were requested to take possession of the said plot by the State respondents by letter dated 14th February, 1995. The original petitioners failed to comply with the said letter and by letters dated 18th December, 2006 and 19th January, 2007 expressed their inability to take possession of the plot and 5 requested the Authority to make over possession in their favour.

By the order impugned dated 4th May, 2007 the request of the petitioners was turned down by the Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no cogent reason has been assigned by the Authority for rejection of the request. The Authority, in the order impugned, has referred to Clause 12 of the allotment order which ceases to exist after execution of the deed of lease. The petitioners seek liberty to submit a fresh representation before the Authority stating their contention and pray for direction upon the Authority to consider their said application within a stipulated time frame.

Such request of the petitioners is conceded to by the learned counsel for the State respondents.

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a comprehensive application before the Authority annexing all 6 relevant documents indicating the reasons for their inability to take possession of the land in question within due time. Such application be submitted within a fortnight from date.

The 6th respondent shall consider and dispose of the application within two months from the date of receipt of the application after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties including the petitioners, in accordance with law. In dealing with the representation the 6th respondent shall not be influenced by the order impugned dated 4th May, 2007 and shall consider the contention made out by the petitioners in the application afresh.

The decision taken by the Authority shall be communicated to the petitioners within a week thereof.

W.P.A. 19029 of 2007 is thus disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Since no affidavit has been invited, allegations contained in the writ petition shall be deemed not to have been admitted.

Urgent certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)