Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 216 (CAL)

Tapan Debnath v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2007-03-23

MAHARAJ SINHA

body2007
Judgment :- (1) THE writ petitioner herein is a lower division assistant and at present employed in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyani, in the District of Nadia. (2) IT appears that in the year 1955, the Development and Planning department of the State of West Bengal constructed 500 flats of different types at Kalyani. The said houses were for sale to the public under a commercial scheme on no loss no profit basis. Another plot of 400 flats were also built by the said Department in the year 1962, at Kalyani, under the L. I. G. Scheme for sale also on no loss no profit basis. (3) IN the year 1974, to be precise on 04. 10. 1974, the Employment commissioner and Ex-officio Secretary to the Development and Planning department, Government of West Bengal, requested the Commissioner, secretary, Health Department, Government of West Bengal, for sale of the said flats at Kalyani to the occupiers of the said flats under Higher Purchase Scheme provided, however, they made applications to the Estate Manager of the said Department. (4) ALTHOUGH there were about 900 quarters, out of them about 84 quarters were vacant, but those could not be sold to the public due to some pending litigations in this Court. (5) OUT of 84 quarters some 20 quarters were allotted to the District magistrate, Nadia, which was in turn handed over to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyani, for allotment of those quarters to its employees. The petitioners along with 8 (eight) other persons were allowed to occupy some quarters (particulars of which are mentioned in Paragraph-2 of the petition) by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyani, subject to regularisation of the said occupations. (6) ACCORDINGLY, in the year 1986, the petitioner along with other eight persons took possession of the respective quarters. (7) THE petitioner took possession of quarter No. B-2/35 whereas Sri Sisir Kr. Dutta took possession of quarter No. B-2/39, Sri Vivekananda Ghosh took possession of quarter No. B-2/33, Sri Samar Bhattacharya took possession of quarter No. B-2/32, Sri Sankar Sarkar took possession of quarter No. B-2/44, and Sri Vikash Ch. Das took possession of quarter no. B-2/43. All the other persons were subsequently given formal allotment order and they purchased the respective quarters in their occupation. Das took possession of quarter no. B-2/43. All the other persons were subsequently given formal allotment order and they purchased the respective quarters in their occupation. (8) AFTER the permission was given to the writ petitioner for occupation of the said quarter, he made a representation to the concerned authority for formal allotment and regularisation of the said quarter in his favour. The said representation was not, however, considered and the writ petitioner went on making representations to the said effect for allotment and regularisation of the said quarter in his favour. Necessary documents in this regard are annexure - P/4 and Annexure - P/5 to the writ application. (9) IN the year 1994, the petitioner could not join his office regularly due to his mothers illness and could not stay regularly in the said quarter. On 18th March, 1994 when the petitioner returned, he found his quarter under lock and key. (10) THE petitioner thereafter moved a writ petition, C. O. No. 5525 (W) of 1995 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 5. 12. 1995 with a direction on the District Magistrate concerned to consider petitioners representation in terms of the relevant Rules for allotment of quarters, if any. The District Magistrate, however. , rejected the claim of the petitioner. (11) CHALLENGING the said order of rejection, as communicated by Memo, dated 25th March, 1996, another writ petition, C. O. No. 19153 (W) of 1996, was moved and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 11th april,1997 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. (12) THEREAFTER, several correspondences were made, representations were filed and after hearing the petitioner the 4th respondent asked the 5th respondent to enquire the case of the petitioner and submit a detailed report to his office. (13) THE 5th respondent by his letter dated 6th April, 1999 recommended for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner and also mentioned that some Government employee/casual workers of Government having same status as of the petitioner were allotted Government quarters and some flats remained unallotted till then. (14) THEREAFTER, the 4th respondent by his letter dated 8th July, 1999 asked the 5th respondent to realise the rent from the petitioner for a period of about eight years, namely, from 1986 to 1994 and to report the office. (14) THEREAFTER, the 4th respondent by his letter dated 8th July, 1999 asked the 5th respondent to realise the rent from the petitioner for a period of about eight years, namely, from 1986 to 1994 and to report the office. It was also mentioned that on receipt of realisation report the prayer of the petitioner would be sent to the Government for necessary approval. (15) ACCORDINGLY, the 5th respondent by his letter dated 29th July, 1999 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 9,785/- as rent of the government flat No. B-2/35 in arrears from 1. 1. 1986 to 31. 7. 1994 @ Rs. 95/- per month. (16) THE petitioner deposited Rs. 9,785/-vide challan, dated 29th July, 1999. Thereafter, the 4th respondent by his letter, dated 12th August, 1999 informed the 2nd respondent, the Estate Manager, that the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of Government flat in his favour was recommended for allotment. The 2nd respondent was further requested to communicate the necessary Government Order to the 4th respondent, namely, the District magistrate of Nadia. (17) THEREAFTER, the 4th respondent directed the 5th respondent by his memorandum, dated 14. 03. 2000 to make arrangement "to allot/provide accommodation" to the petitioner. (18) THE District Magistrate concerned by yet another letter, dated 27th July, 2000 again requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, the 5th respondent herein, to take up the matter with the Estate Manager, Kalyani, for early disposal. (19) MS. Sengupta, learned Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition pointed out in somewhat detail that inspite of the recommendation of the District Magistrate concerned for allotment of the Government flat in favour of the petitioner the Estate Manager did not pass the necessary order of allotment though such allotment order should have been passed as a matter of course and was, in fact, passed in favour of other candidates who were not in any way in a better position than the petitioner. (20) ACCORDING to the petitioner one Santosh Ch. Das, who was a casual employee, at the relevant point of time was allotted a Government flat on the basis of a no objection certificate issued by the 5th respondent herein and he purchased the flat on higher purchase basis. The order of allotment in favour of Santosh Ch. Das was made on 2nd January, 1997. Das, who was a casual employee, at the relevant point of time was allotted a Government flat on the basis of a no objection certificate issued by the 5th respondent herein and he purchased the flat on higher purchase basis. The order of allotment in favour of Santosh Ch. Das was made on 2nd January, 1997. A copy of the said order is Annexure -P/8 to the writ petition appearing at page 65 thereof. (21) LEARNED Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioner put a lot of emphasis on two main criteria on which a candidate or rather an employee becomes eligible for allotment of a Government flat in question. Firstly, the authority concerned will issue a no objection certificate and secondly, the employee concerned must clear the rent of the flat under his occupation, in other words, there should not be any rent in arrears of the flat which was and is in occupation of the employee concerned. (22) THE learned Counsel appearing in favour of the petitioner submitted in no uncertain terms that both the 4th and the 5th respondents herein, namely, the District Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned had given their no objection certificate long back as they themselves recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment of flat in his favour to the concerned estate Manager, namely, the 2nd respondent herein. In support of this submission the learned Counsel referred to the three memorandums that i have mentioned above, namely, dated 12th August, 1999,14th March, 2000 and 27th July, 2000. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner as asked for paid the rent in arrears covering a period of more than eight years, namely, from 1st January, 1986 to 31st July, 1994. (23) IT was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though allotment of flat was made in favour of the petitioner inspite of the above recommendations or rather when the case of the petitioner for formal allotment of flat was pending, the other candidates or other employees who were junior to the petitioner in service "name of one of such persons is mentioned in the writ petition" who all applied much after the petitioner, the orders of allotment of flats were made in their favour. (24) IN Paragraphs-20, 21 and its several sub-paragraphs of the petition the petitioner has stated in somewhat detail that the persons who occupied government flats/quarters in the year 1986 with the petitioner for the first time have by now become the owners of their respective flats by virtue of the respective orders of allotment of flats in their favour. (25) NEEDLESS to mention at this stage, that since the respondents have decided not to contest this writ petition the positive statement made in the writ petition of the petitioner have remained uncontroverted. (26) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in making the orders of allotment of flats in favour of the employees or rather in favour of the concerned candidates, the authority or authorities concerned had and has adopted a ;pick and choose" policy and in the process the persons, who have their own house or landed property, had been allotted government quarters or flats and the petitioner though a refugee from East Bengal without any landed property or even any shelter of his own for living was not favoured with a flat though his case was recommended more than once by the person or persons who were authorized to make such recommendations in favour of the writ petitioner. (27) SOME of the persons employed in the office of the Sub-Divisional officer, Kalyani, Nadia, who obtained possession of their respective flats with the petitioner (whose particulars have been given in Paragraph-2 of their writ petition) moved a writ petition in this Court as they also could not obtain no objection certificate from the authority concerned and as such could not obtain the order or orders of allotment of flats in their favour. (28) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said writ petition was finally decided by His Lordship Justice Altamas Kabir on 19 July, 1991 [C. O. No. 12906 (W) of 1990]. His Lordship, in fact, directed the concerned respondents to grant no objection certificate to the writ petitioners to enable them to purchase the houses under their occupation. Another case which was practically identical to the case of the writ petitioner herein was also disposed of by this Court [namely by myself on 11th August, 2003] [Arati Sudan Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. Another case which was practically identical to the case of the writ petitioner herein was also disposed of by this Court [namely by myself on 11th August, 2003] [Arati Sudan Mondal v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. , W. P. No. 16458 (W) of 1997], inter alia, with a direction on the authority or authorities concerned to grant no objection certificate to the writ petitioner therein to enable the petitioner to purchase the flat in question. The said writ petition was also not opposed by the respondents concerned and the Court observed that the concerned respondents perhaps thought it fit not to oppose that writ petition because the respondents were well aware that the case of the petitioner [namely Arati Sudan Mondal] was fully covered by the earlier judgment of this Court of His Lordship Justice Kabir on the earlier writ petition mentioned above. (29) I have considered both the above judgments relied on by the learned counsel in support of her submissions that the present case is a fit case where the authorities or the respondents should be directed to issue the necessary order of allotment of flat in favour of the writ petitioner and on such consideration, I have no manner of doubt that the above two judgments or rather the decisions of the Court fully cover the case of the present petitioner Tapan Debnath. (30) BEFORE I conclude, it should be pointed out that the concerned district Magistrate, the 4th respondent herein, in fact, mentioned in his said letter, dated 12th August, 1999 that pursuant to the application of the petitioner made to the Minister-in-Charge, Urban Development Department, the case of the writ petitioner Tapan Debnath was "recommended for allotment of government flat". (30) BEFORE I conclude, it should be pointed out that the concerned district Magistrate, the 4th respondent herein, in fact, mentioned in his said letter, dated 12th August, 1999 that pursuant to the application of the petitioner made to the Minister-in-Charge, Urban Development Department, the case of the writ petitioner Tapan Debnath was "recommended for allotment of government flat". (31) SINCE, in my opinion, the petitioner has suffered for no fault or default on his part and since the authority concerned inspite of repeated recommendations of the petitioners case by the competent authority had and has failed to allot the Government flat in favour of the petitioner to enable the petitioner to purchase the same and since the other employees who were in occupation and/or possession of their respective Government flats have by now been able to purchase their respective flats and this Court on earlier occasions granted reliefs in favour of the writ petitioners whose cases were practically identical to the case of the petitioner herein, I think that the authority or authorities concerned should immediately be directed to allot a quarter or a flat under the Low Income Group Scheme at Kalyani as mentioned in prayer- (a) of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. (32) THUS, the respondents concerned in proper implementation of the recommendations in favour of the petitioner made by the concerned respondents herein, are directed to allot quarter No. D-2/35 or any other similar B-2 type Government flat under the Low Income Group Scheme, at kalyani, in the District Nadia, in favour of the petitioner within, six weeks from the date of communication of this order. (33) NEEDLESS to mention, once such allotment is made the petitioner will be entitled to purchase the same on fulfilling the formalities thereof on higher purchase basis or on the basis of which such flat or flats or quarters are or have been sold to other employees of the petitioners status. (34) THUS the writ petition is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.