A division bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Arijit Banerjee on Monday imposed an indicative cost of Rs 10,000 on the Board of Control. Cricket In India (BCCI) President Sourav Ganguly and the Government of West Bengal and a state-owned corporation – WBHIDCO – imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on setting up a school in the New Town area for irregular allotment of plots to the former India captain. Kolkata.
The bench in its order said, “We need not set aside the allotment of plot as the same has already been surrendered, however, for the conduct of the State in creating litigation by arbitrary exercise of power which is contrary to law.” The Supreme Court, we impose a cost of Rs 50,000 each on the state and WBHIDCO (West Bengal Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation).
The bench imposed a “token cost of Rs 10,000″ on the BCCI President and the ‘Ganguly Education and Welfare Society’ for the reason that they too should have acted in accordance with the law, especially in view of the earlier judgment in which the plot was disposed of in their favour. The allocation was made arbitrarily. Supreme Court quashed.”
While passing the order, a division bench also observed that there is a need for a defined policy to guide on all issues so that there is no arbitrary exercise of power by applying the pick and choice formula.
However, the bench observed: “The State Government and HIDCO shall be at liberty to recover the cost from the persons concerned in their employment, who were responsible for the irregular allotment of the concerned plot in favor of the Respondent”.
The bench passed the order on a PIL questioning the allotment of two acres of land to Ganguly and the said society for setting up a school in New Town. The plot of land was handed over to WBHIDCO in August 2020.
“The country has always stood by the players, especially those who represent the country in international events. It is also true that Sourav Ganguly has brought laurels to the country in cricket. But when it comes to law, our constitutional plan is that all are equal and no one can claim to be above the law and seek benefits from the state, especially when it comes to allotment of plots for commercial enterprises. Question arises,” the bench said.
A PIL was filed in 2016 challenging the allotment of plot in New Town by WBHIDCO, alleging violation of rules, regulations provided for allotment of plot.
The allotment was made to Ganguly and the society through a letter dated September 27, 2013.
The petitioners claimed that in the first round of the trial, the allotment of a plot of land to Ganguly in Salt Lake in 2009 was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2011.
read all breaking news, breaking news And coronavirus news Here
.