Satyajug Employees Co-Operative Industrial Societies Limited vs State Of West Bengal & Ors.

The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is moved on service. The affidavit of service showing service, inter alia, on the fourth

respondent filed in Court today be kept on records. The writ petitioner is a small scale industrial concerned. It is a tenant of premises under the

provisions of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’]. There is a

condition imposed by the State of West Bengal that unless activities are started in the plot of land allocated to it within three months being Clause 2g

of the lease-deed, the tenancy can be terminated; in fact, the tenancy was terminated on December 14, 2013 for non-payment of service tax and

service charge as also for not starting activities.

It is the case of the writ petitioner that he could not start his activities because he needed to construct a building on the plot which falls within the

jurisdiction of the second respondent. The second respondent is a statutory body corporate constituted under the provisions of Section 13 of the West

Bengal Municipal Act, 1993, each of whose authorities under Section 12 of the Municipal Act, 1993 has been arrayed as party respondents in the writ

petition.

The writ petitioner’s further case is that though he applied for sanction of a building plan on July 1, 2013 which the second respondent duly

received by affixing its stamp and seal as appears from page 54 of the writ petition, despite the passage of more than 60 days from such receipt, the

respondent no.5, Board of Councillors, neither accorded sanction whether conditionally or otherwise nor refused it but displayed a silence of the

stones. The application for sanction of the building plan, which was made before the tenancy of the writ petitioner, was terminated by the respondents.

It is alleged by the writ petition that no additional information was required by the respondent municipality within the meaning of Section 207 of the

said Act of 1993. This is a case of deemed sanction under Section 108. However, it is his further case that because of the ground of realities despite

deemed sanction, no one is actually allowed to carry on construction by the municipality, which is not above extracting money from small industrialists,

under the omnibus heading of development fees as appears from page 50 of the writ petition.

Needless to mention the concept of development fee of Rs.80,000/- in addition to municipal taxes and rates taken in advance does not appear to be

much different from donaties or capitation fees which are prevalent in case of private purveyors of education. Before the land is developed or even

any plan is sanctioned to develop the plot, the question of development fees appears to be a perfect example of the old Bengali proverb ""GACHE

KANTHAL GONFE TELâ€. Therefore, I cannot dismiss the apprehension of the writ petition that the deemed sanction on the pages of the statute

book is in reality a utopian idea more observed in the breach.

Having said all of these in view of the fact that the writ petitioner does not appear to have challenged Annexure ‘P-13’ by which its tenancy

has been terminated but that only a representation has been made in respect whereof the hearing of the appeal was held and an order of resumption

of land was passed on October 28, 2014 as appears from Annexure ‘P-17’ of the writ petition, I am not quite clear what the granting of the

reliefs claimed in the present writ petition shall avail the petitioner.

Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior advocate, submits that a separate writ petition has been taken out challenging the order of resumption as in

Annexure 'P-17' being W.P.29613 (W) of 2014 where by an order dated November 18, 2014 direction has been given restraining the respondent

authorities from creating any third party interest. The writ petitioner’s learned advocate on record is requested to make a copy of such interim

order and submit the same for being kept on record in this case.Accordingly, I feel that subject to hearing and giving the parties an opportunity of

being heard though despite service as aforesaid none has appeared, the following interim relief should be passed : -

If the writ petitioner is still in physical possession of the allotted plot in question, regardless of who has symbolic possession, the respondent municipal

authority, shall accord conditional sanction to the building plan submitted by the writ petitioner provided all statutory formalities are complied with and

anything required by the statute and statutory rules is deposited and/or done by the writ petitioner; this shall be subject to the condition that in case the

order of resumption is Annexure ‘P-17’ is upheld by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the sanction shall lapse and be

cancelled. Any construction made pursuant to the conditional sanction shall be at the risk and cost of the writ petitioner.

This shall be an interim measure. The respondents shall be entitled to file their affidavit-in-opposition within eight weeks from the communication of

this order, reply if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. Liberty to mention for hearing after completion of affidavits. I make it clear that I am

passing this order only to ensure that words of the statue do not remain the pious intention of a legislature whose words sound in the echoing well of

executive silence.