AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The writ petitioner challenges wrongful and illegal imposition of new terms and conditions for allotment of Shed No. J-16 by the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. and also illegal allotment of the said shed, issued by West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vide its order dated 16th July, 2003.
The grievance of the petitioner is such that in order to run their unit in a more viable and economic way by increasing its capacity and the efficiency of its operation they have prayed for an extra working space. Accordingly, they have applied to the respondent No. 3 for allotment of said Shed No. J-16 at Bultikuri Industrial Estate. The respondent informed the petitioner that the said Shed No. J-16 would be allotted in favour of the present petitioner as per the then existing terms and conditions. Thereafter, there were series of communications through letters by and between the parties and the present respondent decided to allot Shed No. J-16 subject of course payment of certain amount. Time to time, the present petitioner has prayed for extension of time for depositing the money. In one occasion the present petitioner disclosed that due to financial stringency they are unable to deposit the amount. However, one of the terms and conditions was such that the petitioner has to submit a ''vetted report'' along with their application so as to enable the state respondent to accede to their request. But the petitioner did not submit any ''vetted report'' in terms of the conditions. This apart, the state respondent requested them to submit the vetted report within a specified period. The writ petitioner did not comply with the said request of the state respondent. On the contrary, they have submitted an ''abridged report'' and in the said report the present petitioner did not mention in so many words about the viability of the project. This apart, the present petitioner allegedly sub-let some portion of the said shed to the petitioner no. 2, which according to the state respondent is illegal. Be that as it may, the state respondent was not satisfied that the ''abridged report'' filed by the petitioner and as a result cancelled the allotment and has allotted the said portion to a third party. Being aggrieved at it, the petitioners filed this writ application and contended that the acts done by the state respondents are illegal and that the same cannot be given effect to. Be that as it may, at the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that they were all along diligent and time to time made communication with the respondent authorities. In reply, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state respondents submitted that in terms of the agreement, the writ petitioner could not furnish the documents to the satisfaction of the authority concerned. However, the petitioner prayed for extension of time by making the applications one after another for depositing the amount and lastly the petitioner deposited the same amount. In spite of that allotment has not been given in their favour.
According to the state respondents mere depositing the lease rent does not mean that the state respondent is under an obligation to allot the said Shed No. J-16 to the petitioner. The said respondent further asserted that no ''vetted report'' has been submitted and as a result under compelling circumstances they had to cancel the agreement and allotment has been given to a third party. It is true, that the state respondent had accepted the money receipt from the petitioner and after allotting the said Shed No. J-16 they have given the opportunity to the present petitioner to withdraw the amount which was deposited by them.
At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the state respondent contended that the property belongs to the Government under Government Grants Act. The combined effect of Sections 2 and 3 of the said act is that terms of any grant or terms of any transfer of land made by a Government would stand insulated from the tentacles of any statutory law. Section 3 places the terms of such grant beyond the reach of any restrictive provision contained in any enacted law or even the equitable principles of justice, equity and good conscience adumbrated by common law if such principles are inconsistent with such terms. The two provisions are so framed as to confer unfettered discretion on the Government to enforce any condition or limitation or restriction in all types of grants made by the Government to any person. In other words, the rights, privileges and obligations of any grantee of the Government would be completely regulated by the terms of the grant, even if such terms are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law. It is perhaps needless to say that the Government Grants Act supersedes all other enactments. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a concluded contract by and between the parties. At the initial stage, writ petitioner themselves prayed for time for depositing the money for quite a considerable years and the respondent authority had given them that opportunity. In terms of the agreement the petitioner was supposed to file vetted report and since that has not been done the respondent authority had to cancel it. Therefore, inaction on the part of the writ petitioner has virtually compelled the state respondents to cancel the said agreement. The said industrial area was created only for the advancement of commercial activities and business by the eligible entrepreneurs. After so-called allotment the petitioner sat tight over the issue and also expressed in one occasion about their financial stringency to run the business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner was all along diligent. The purpose of creation of that industrial unit was to promote small scale industries in this state. Since the petitioner did not obey the terms and conditions so the state respondent has allotted the said shed to a third party. In course of hearing, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner admitted that the third party has been running their business in Shed No. J-16, which was previously allotted to them. Therefore, at this stage it is not desirable to remove the said third party from that allotted portion because they have also got the allotment from the state respondent and has been carrying on their business. It will be neither fruitful nor practicable in any sense to remove them.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant further contended that there are other vacant sheds in or around their shed and the respondent may be directed to allot the same in their favour. In reply, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that there is no adjacent shed available which can be allotted to the present petitioner. However, the respondent authority agreed that if any such occasion arises due to abandonment or for any other reason and if any shed is available in the said industrial unit, that may be considered for allotment to the present petitioner subject of course fulfilment of the extant terms and conditions of the West Bengal Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Limited. It is trite law, that the High Court may mould the reliefs to respond to the peculiar and complicated requirements in a given situation. Therefore, if any vacant shed is available in that case the petitioner shall be at liberty to, if so advised, to apply for the same subject of course fulfilment of the extant conditions to be imposed by the state respondents. With this direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.