CONTINENTAL CHEMICAL Vs. WEST BENGAL SMALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm carrying on business from 2 Plots and 1 Shed at the Behala Industrial Estate, 620 Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata. The petitioner no. 2 is a partner of the petitioner no. 1. The respondents are the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited and its Chairman, Managing Director and other Officers.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by a communication from the respondent no. 1 Corporation dtd. 15/12/2021 whereby the petitioner no. 1 was asked to comply with orders dtd. 4/5/2015 and 29/5/2015 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation and to execute and register a lease deed as mentioned in the said orders with immediate effect. The first of the two orders appears to be that of 6/4/2015 (and not 4/5/2015) as would appear from the petitioners' response to the same dtd. 29/4/2015 and the subsequent order was passed by the Corporation on 29/5/2015. The cumulative effect of the two orders is that the petitioners were directed to execute a fresh lease deed for the Plots occupied by the petitioners in the Behala Industrial Estate by 15/6/2015 by taking necessary steps in that regard. The Corporation was given the right to examine the arrears of dues of the petitioners and take steps against the petitioner no. 1 if the petitioner no. 1 failed to comply with the directions.

(3.) The petitioners' case, as argued by the petitioner no. 2 appearing in person, is that the petitioners should be given some relief from payment of arrears of charges as the petitioner no. 2 is an old and existing entrepreneur of the Industrial Estate. The petitioners rely on a Minutes of meeting of the Corporation held on 13/10/2020 where the Chairman of the Corporation indicated that a Special Scheme would be introduced for old and existing entrepreneurs with long term lease for 75 years and a market price of Rs.30.00 lacs/katah as per valuation. The petitioners say that the petitioners are liable to get the concession available under the Scheme and that the Scheme provides for a mechanism for settlement of arrears of lease rent. The petitioners also say that the petitioners were not communicated with the quantum of arrears which was to be paid to the Corporation. The other contention is that the petitioners have been discriminated against and that the Corporation has given special concessions to certain other lessees who are on the same footing as that of the petitioners.