RAM CHANDRA PRASHAD Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th of January, 2007 passed by the Learned single Judge in G. A. No. 79 of 2007 arising out of W. P. No. 604 of 2006. The appellant is a practicing advocate of this Court. He has been pursuing this litigation since 26th of September, 1988. The grievance is that he ought to be allotted a residential plot in East Calcutta Area Development project, Phase-1 (hereinafter referred to as the Project ). His claim has been successively rejected by the Executive as well as this High Court in a number of proceedings to which we shall make a reference presently.

(2.) THE pleaded case of the appellant is that in February, 1987 applications were invited from the public for an allotment of residential plots in the Project. The applicants were to be divided into 4 categories based on income. The appellant had submitted the applications for a residential plot reserved for Higher Income Group category (HUG ). There were 50 plots available in the category. The applications were initially required to be submitted on 11th May, 1987. The date was further extended to 30th May, 1987. The lottery was held on 30th July, 1988. It was held in the presence of a number of notable dignitaries of Kolkata. The petitioner was not successful in the lottery. He, therefore, filed W. P. No. 4633 of 1988 on 26th September, 1988 challenging the lottery. An interim order was passed restraining the respondent No. 1 from giving any effect to the lottery. Writ applications were filed by two other applicants and similar interim order were passed therein. On 29th may, 1992 the interim orders passed in the three writ applications were modified to the extent that three plots would be set apart for the three writ petitioners but the remaining process would continue. The Advocate general was also directed to try to find out some solution for allotment of the plots to the petitioners in the meantime without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. This position was clarified on 29th July, 1992 by an order which stated that :

(3.) IN the meantime, Advocate General was asked to try to find out some solution in the matter, if possible. The two writ petitions of the other candidates were dismissed during the pendency of this petition. Thereafter, Justice Ruma Pal dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 30th of August, 1996. It is the claim of the appellant that the words 'if possible' in the order dated 29th of July, 1992 were incorporated in the order in connivance with the Court officer. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by a Division Bench consisting of justice Altamas Kabir and Asit Kumar Bisi by judgment and order dated 20th July, 2004. However, after dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench was pleased to accept the submission of the appellant that the appeal be treated as a representation which may be considered by the State Government. The Division Bench, therefore, observed "we accordingly disposed of the appeal leaving it to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner, if the same is possible within its discretionary powers. " Thereafter, the appellant filed G. A. No. 535 of 2005 for clarification of the order dated 20th of july, 2004. The aforesaid application was disposed of by order dated 5th October, 2004. In the order dated 20th of July, 2004 it had been mentioned that the lottery had been held by the State Government on 30th of July, 1988 for residential flats. It was stated by the appellant that the same should read allotment of residential plots. Necessary clarification was made. Thereafter, the appellant filed W. P. No. 604 of 2006 which was also dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 29th of November, 2006. Thereafter, the appellant filed Review application seeking review of the order dated 29th of November, 2006. But the Review Application was also dismissed by an order dated 16th of January, 2007. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 16th of january, 2007. We had directed the respondents to file the affidavit-in-opposition. The appellant also filed supplementary affidavit on 30th August, 2007. A further affidavit-in-reply was filed on 17th December, 2007. He has also filed written submissions. In the written submissions the appellant has put forth the plea that the holding of the lottery was not only against the rules and regulations but also against the brochure prescribed by the CMDA for holding the lottery. He has also pointed out that the action of the State is mala fide. He has reiterated a number of submissions which have been considered by Justice Ruma Pal in the order dated 30th August, 1996. Justice Ruma pal has specifically noticed that the submissions of the petitioner can be classified under three broad heads viz. first is the actual holding of the lottery, the second is the mode of selection and the third arises out of the court's orders. The final submission of the petitioner was that he was a member of the legal profession and a Senior Central Government counsel and owing to his special status was entitled to particular consideration. It was also reiterated that the advocate General had not considered the case as directed by the Court. It was further prayed that the three plots which had already been set aside for the three writ petitioners should in all fairness be allotted to them. Each and every submission which is sought to be made by the appellant in the present appeal have been answered by the learned single Judge in the judgment dated 30th August, 1996 in W. P. No. 4633 of 1998. The aforesaid judgment was challenged in appeal and it was upheld. Thereafter, again by an order dated 1st July, 2005 A. P. O. No. 401 of 1996 G. A. No. 535 of 2005 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by directing the KMDA to consider the representations of the appellant which had been sent to the KMDA by the State Government in terms of this Court's order dated 20th july, 2004, subsequently modified by order dated 5th October, 2004. This representation was decided against the petitioner. He, thereafter, filed contempt application C. C. No. 1 of 2006. The petitioner had also filed g. A. No. 128 of 2006 seeking review of the order dated 20th July, 2004 by which the division Bench had disposed of the appeal by directing the State Government to consider the appeal as a representation, in its discretionary powers, if it is possible. All these applications were again dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th of April 2006. From the above it becomes apparent that the claim of the petitioners has been rejected repeatedly.