HUMANITY, SALT LAKE Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition was filed in public interest to challenge allotment of plot bearing no. IID/2920/1, New Town by West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (for short, 'HIDCO ') totally in violation of rules, regulations and policies provided for allotment of plots. Allotment was made to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 vide letter dated September 27, 2013. The writ petition was filed in the year 2016 and is pending since then. When the matter was taken up for hearing, at the very outset, the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 9 and 10/ the allottees and the Counsel appearing for HIDCO submitted that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 having surrendered the plot and the amount deposited by them having been refunded, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition. The prayers made therein have been rendered infructuous.

(2.) To this serious objection was raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners stating that there is no respect for law in the State of West Bengal. In the earlier round of litigation illegal allotment of plot was made to Sourav Ganguly, the respondent No. 9, the matter went up to Hon 'ble the Supreme Court. Vide judgment reported as Humanity and Another vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2011) 6 SCC 125 illegal allotment of a plot in similar fashion in favour of the respondent No. 9 way back in the year 2009, was set aside. Immediately after the quashing of the aforesaid allotment in his favour, a request was made by him vide letter dated July, 09, 2012 to the Chief Minister of West Bengal for allotment of a plot and the same was allotted to him violating all Rules and Regulations. Hence, the matter needs to be examined with certain adverse comment on working of the respondents where despite quashing of the allotment made in favour of the respondent No. 9 earlier, in totally illegal manner the same process was again followed for allotment of a plot to him. In case this allotment was not challenged by the petitioners in this Court, the respondent No. 9 would have enjoyed bounty given by the State/ State Authority. He waited for a period of five years to surrender the allotment.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid arguments raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners, we find it appropriate to deal with the issues raised in the writ petition on merits even though the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 have surrendered the plot, as claimed.