MOHD. HELALUDDIN SK. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed styled as a public interest litigation to set aside an order passed by the respondent authorities dtd. 11/11/2022 by which three plots of land were transferred in the name of the 7th respondent namely M/s. S and D Health Care. The petitioner's sole contention is that the said land has been allotted to the 7th respondent by the 8th respondent namely the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation without following any tender process without any advertisement and contrary to the Land Policy as framed by the Government of West Bengal, the Land and Land Reforms Department dtd. 31/26/2012.

(2.) In this regard, the writ petitioner had submitted a representation on 11/11/2022 and since the representation though received by the authorities was not considered, had filed the writ petition, notice was ordered to the respondents and an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the officer of the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 for which the writ petitioner has filed his reply. The official respondents would contend that the concerned plots were initially leased out to M/s. Satyajug Employees Cooperative Industrial Society Limited for a particular period of time and that the said lessee had assigned the property in favour of the seventh respondent herein and in this regard, had submitted a request to the respondent Corporation. It is submitted that for the purpose of such transfer application forms have been prescribed of which one has to be filed by the transferor and one has to be filed by the transferee and these applications will be considered and the respondent Corporation has passed orders approving such assignment of the lease hold right granted to the original allotee M/s. Satyajug Employees Cooperative Industrial Society Limited. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no breach of the Land Policy framed by the Government of West Bengal and the assignment which was approved by the respondent Corporation is within the four corners of the Land Policy framed by the Government. Further, the learned Advocate, appearing for the Respondents 1 to 6 would vehemently contend that the petitioner is not a genuine public interest litigant but he is a personally interested litigant which is evident from the representation submitted by the writ petitioner dtd. 12/12/2022.

(3.) In reply the learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that Clause 3 (4) of the Land Policy clearly stipulates that the land meant for commercial use shall invariably be auctioned to the highest bidder for which adequate publicity should be given including through internet and this had not been followed in the instant case and therefore, the proceedings of the respondent Corporation has to be set aside.