Judgment : Ashim Kumar Banerjee, ACJ. FACTS: The writ petitioner No. 1 claiming to be a society registered under the Society Registration Act filed the instant Public Interest Litigation through one of its members being the petition No. 2 inter-alia questioning the propriety of distribution of State larges, particularly the tea estates in the Northern part of West Bengal. The writ petitioner alleged, various tea gardens were handed over to entrepreneurs without adhering to the settled norms and without giving opportunity to all eligible interested persons to go for it. The petitioners particularly made grievance with regard to four tea gardens Ramjhora, Bamondanga and Tondoo, Poobong and Ringtong. All the four tea gardens named above, were sick and the erstwhile owners of the Tea Estate could not run it efficiently resulting in tremendous labour unrest as their wages became outstanding for a long time. It was further alleged that another Tea Estate namely New Chunta Tea Estate was allowed to be transformed into Sports Complex as also Resorts and that too, without adhering to the existing norms. The petitioners made grievance in respect of Tondoo Tea Estate and Bamandanga Tea Estate. Significant to note, Ambootia Tea Group Exports Private Limited, a company established under Companies Act 1956 took over the said two Tea Estates at the instance of the State. LIS: The petitioners moved the Public Interest Litigation inter-alia praying for writ in the nature of mandamus commending the State respondents to frame a transparent and uniform process/policy while settling the Tea Estates belonging to the State. The State oppose the application by filing affidavit through Land and Land Reforms Department. The Deputy Secretary deposed, the State followed all the norms and the process was transparent. The State questioned the locus of the petitioners in raising the issue. The State framed a policy for reopening of the closed tea gardens and the scheme was propounded in 2008 being “The West Bengal State Support Scheme for reopening of closed/abundant tea gardens 2008.” As per the said scheme, the State settled the tea gardens as stated in paragraph 5(vii). The State gave details as to the earlier litigations with regard to the closed tea gardens. With regard to Bamandanga and Tandoo the deponent gave details of the meeting of the Committee held on June 19, 2009 and the detailed procedure followed in case of the said Tea Estates. The State gave details as to the earlier litigations with regard to the closed tea gardens. With regard to Bamandanga and Tandoo the deponent gave details of the meeting of the Committee held on June 19, 2009 and the detailed procedure followed in case of the said Tea Estates. The matter was heard by the other Bench when the Division Bench called for a report. The principal secretary, Land and Land Reforms Department submitted a report on August 25, 2011. On perusal of the said report we find, the present allottee was supposed to take over all past liabilities including bank loans, worker dues, provident fund, and statutory liabilities. The principal secretary, in his report, contended, the State took the plight of the huge work force engaged in the said Tea Estates as paramount consideration and settled the tea estates accordingly as per the scheme of 2008 referred to above. CONTENTIONS: Mr. Pramit Ray learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition would draw our attention to various averments raised in the petition, particularly paragraph 4, 14, 15 and 19 thereof and drew our attention to the affidavit-in-opposition to contend, the State miserably failed to answer the definite allegations made in this regard. Commenting on the scheme of 2008, Mr. Ray contended, the said scheme provided for support to the existing entrepreneurs and under the scheme there was no scope to extend such benefit to a new entrant. Once the State would hand over a tea garden to any private entrepreneur, the other eligible entrepreneurs should be given a level playing field to participate. He complained of nine tea gardens although his petition would relate to four tea gardens mentioned above. Commenting on the letter of intent, Mr. Ray would contend, Ambootia by their letter written subsequently, categorically cancelled their letter of intent. Once the same was cancelled they should not be allowed to continue. He also referred to the conversion of the Tea Estates referred to in the petition mentioned above. Supporting his contentions, Mr. Utpal Bose learned Senior Counsel contended, he was also interested in taking over the Tea Estate. He did not get any opportunity. Mr. Bose appeared for Jaldacca Tea Plantation Private Limited, the added respondent. He also referred to the conversion of the Tea Estates referred to in the petition mentioned above. Supporting his contentions, Mr. Utpal Bose learned Senior Counsel contended, he was also interested in taking over the Tea Estate. He did not get any opportunity. Mr. Bose appeared for Jaldacca Tea Plantation Private Limited, the added respondent. Per contra, learned Additional Government Leader Sri Tapan Kumar Mukherjee contended, State always wanted to look into the interest of the workers, at the same time welfare of the Tea Estate as a whole. The Tea Estates mentioned above, were settled as per the scheme of 2008. The petitioners with oblique motive filed the Public Interest Litigation that would deserve no attention by this Court. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mitra learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ambootia tea contended, the tea garden was settled in a meeting of the High Power committee in 2009. Jaldaccca was also one of the participants; they did not opt for it. Now that Ambootia cleared of all the liabilities including the workers and Tea Estate is now running as a profit this litigation was nothing but a speculative one and should be dismissed. Mr. Arunava Ghosh learned Counsel appearing for the workers informed this Court, the workers were happy with the present management. Their earlier dues were cleared of. The new management also took care of provident fund, ESI and other statutory liabilities. Mr. Ray, while giving reply, would reiterate, Ambootia having cancelled the letter of intent, was not entitled to continue to remain in possession. Moreover, the lease was not renewed. OUR VIEW: Once the respondents challenged the locus of the petitioners it would be the duty of the petitioners to remove such doubt from the mind of the Court. The petitioners did not make any attempt to do so. On merit we find from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State coupled with report submitted by its principal secretary, State was successful in answering the grievances of the petitioners. We are also impressed by the fact, Jaldacca the only interested party appearing before us, could not confront the definite allegation of others, they got opportunity at the right moment to go for revival of the Tea Estate that they did not opt. We cannot brush aside the possibility of the petition being filed at their instance only to un-settle the settled position. Mr. We cannot brush aside the possibility of the petition being filed at their instance only to un-settle the settled position. Mr. Pramit Ray relied on the recent decision of the Apex Court reported in 2012 Volume-III Supreme Court Cases Page-1 (Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Others Vs. Union of India and Others). By the said decision, the Apex Court upset the decision of the Government to permit a telecom company to use 2G mechanism for satellite communication in the State required for upgraded mobile/telephone facility. Paragraph 95 and 96 being relied upon are quoted below: “This Court has repeatedly held that wherever a contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given, the public authority must adopt a transparent and fair method for making selections so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition. To put it differently, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities must always adopt a rational method for disposal of public property and no attempt should be made to scuttle the claim of worthy applicants. When it comes to alienation of scarce natural resources like spectrum, etc. it is the burden of the State to ensure that a non-discriminatory method is adopted for distribution and alienation, which would necessarily result in protection of national/public interest. In our view, a duly publicized auction conducted fairly and impartially is perhaps the best method for discharging this burden and the methods like first-come-first-served when used for alienation of natural resources/public property are likely to be misused by unscrupulous people who are only interested in garnering maximum financial benefit and have no respect for the constitutional ethos and values. In other words, while transferring or alienating the natural resources, the State is duty-bound to adopt the method of auction by giving wide publicity so that all eligible persons can participate in the process.” On going through the paragraphs quoted above, it would appear, the Apex Court was of the view that there must be a transparent process and a level playing field to compete for the State larges that would yield good business. The present litigation would involve sick Tea Estates having a large amount of liability that the erstwhile owner left while abandoning the Tea Estates. The present litigation would involve sick Tea Estates having a large amount of liability that the erstwhile owner left while abandoning the Tea Estates. The State through the high power committee considered various proposals from the people involved in the Tea Industry and ultimately settled it in favour of Ambootia whereas Jaldacca did not opt for it at the crucial time. There is one more significant issue, as we find from the report. In the last paragraph of the report, the principal secretary expressed difficulty in proceeding further in the matter, particularly to decide the question of renewal of the scheme in view of pendency of the present litigation. The writ petition is pending for last three years. The petitioners were not diligent to get it finally disposed of. RESULT: The petition fails and is hereby dismissed along with all pending interim applications. There would be no order as to costs. Debangsu Basak, J: I agree. LATER: All connected applications including the contempt proceeding are consequently disposed of without any order as to costs.