Supreme Court of India
HUMANITY AND ANR.versusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 411
- Decided
- 26 May 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
The second allotment of plot CA‑222 without open advertisement was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14, and is therefore quashed.
Summary
The West Bengal government advertised land for an integrated school and allotted a 50‑katha plot to cricketer Sourav Ganguly. Ganguly later requested a larger plot to meet ICSE affiliation norms and offered to surrender the original plot. Within a month the government allotted a 63‑katha plot without a fresh advertisement. Public‑interest litigants challenged the second allotment on grounds of lack of advertisement, arbitrariness, violation of Article 14, improper surrender, non‑compliance with ICSE norms and planning regulations. The Calcutta High Court upheld the allotment, but the Supreme Court held that the re‑allocation without open advertisement was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14, and that the government had not complied with its own procedural requirements. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the second allotment, ordered the return of the land and a refund of the monies paid, and set aside the High Court’s order.
Issues considered
- The government may re‑allocate a larger plot of land without a fresh public advertisement after an initial advertisement.
- Whether the second allotment without advertisement violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the government’s discretion under the original advertisement permits a change of location and size of the plot.
- Whether the surrender of the original plot was valid before the new allotment.
- Whether compliance with ICSE norms justifies the larger plot allocation.
- Whether the allocation contravenes the master/working plan for the area.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1986s. Section 25(1)(a)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Subjects
Administrative lawArticle 14Government largesseLand allotmentPublic interest litigationICSE normsArbitrarinessDiscriminationPlanning regulations
Judgment
• [2011) 8 S.C.R. 653
HUMANITY AND ANR. A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4782 of 2011.)
MAY 26, 2011
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
Administrative Law - Government action - Allotment of
land by State Government, without open advertisement and
public offer - Challenge to - The State Government issued C
advertisement for allotment of land for setting up of an
intergrated /CSE affiliated school to which 'SG', a cricketer of
qreat repute, responded - A Committee of Government
Officials considered all the applications and decided to allot
the land in favour of 'SG' - Subsequently, 'SG', the al/ottee, o
wrote a letter to the State Government stating that after going
through the norms of '/CSE' norms he felt that allotment of a
bigger plot was needed for getting affiliation and accordingly
he made prayer for allotment of a bigger plot - 'SG' stated
that he 'would like to surrender' the plot already allotted to him E
and would at the same time 'apply for a plot of a bigger area·
- Within a month, the State Government allotted 'SG' a
different plot, of a much bigger size, and in a different area,
which was challenged by public interest litigants before the
High Court in several writ petitions - High Court upheld the F
new/second allotment of bigger plot of land - On appeal, held:
The new allotment of bigger plot in favour of 'SG', the allottee,
cannot be sustained - The action of the Government was one
of granting largesse inasmuch as land of which the
Government is owner and which was allotted is a very scarce G
and valuable property - In the matter of granting largesse,
Government has to act fairly and without even any semblance
of discrimination - Admittedly, no advertisement was issued
and no offer was sought to be obtained from the members of
the public in respect of the new allotment of a much bigger
653 H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R.
•
A plot - The second allotment was not brought about by the
Government in its own discretion, assuming the Government
could exercise its discretion in such a fashion but was in
response to a written request of the allottee - The Government
was so anxious to oblige the allottee by giving bigger plot that
B too with no loss of time, the said allotment was made by the
Government admittedly without verifying whether the allottee
had surrendered the previous plot allotted to him - From the
facts disclosed, it is clear that such surrender took place much
later - The Government made allotment of the new plot to the
c allottee on terms which were even more generous than the
ones suggested by the allottee in his letter - Such action of
the Government definitely smacks of arbitrariness and falls
foul of Article 14 - The a/lottee selectively sought compliance
of the /CSE norms only in asking for a bigger plot - Insofar
as other norms were concerned, they were clearly flouted as
0
seen in the constitution of the Trust set up by 'SG' to run the
proposed school - Also, the new plot was marked in the
working map as one meant for a college yet the same was
given to the allottee for establishing an /CSE school - In
E making the impugned allotment in favour of 'SG', the State
failed to discharge its constitutional role - Once the
Government had initiated the process of advertisement, it
could not jettison the same and allot a new plot to the allottee
without any advertisement - The allottee may be a well-known
sportsman but does not claim any expertise as an
F educationist - The impugned allotment of a different and
bigger plot by the government in favour of the allottee without
any advertisement, when initially advertisement was resorted
· to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed
through in hot haste, was unreasonable and arbitrary, and the
G High Court was wrong in upholding the same - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Article 14.
An advertisement was issued by the Government of
West Bengal, Urban Development Department,
H earmarking a plot of land measuring about 50 kathas in
•HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 655
AND ORS.
Plot No. BF-158 in Sector-I, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar), A
Kolkata, for the setting up of an integrated ICSI affiliated
school. It was stated in the advertisement that the
'
intending Organization /Institution/Body/Registered
Society/Trust which were capable of running and
managing such a school by their own resources, may B
apply to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Government of West Bengal giving details
of the project.
Mr. Sourav Ganguly, a cricketer of great repute,
applied in response to the said advertisement. In the C
project report submitted by him, it was stated that the
school would be owned by a Registered Society/Trust.
. A Committee consisting of several Government officials
considered about 20 applications, filed pursuant to the
aforesaid advertisement. Thereafter, vide a resolution, the D
aforesaid Committee selected Mr. Sourav Ganguly and an
allotment order In respect of plot no. BF-158 was issued
by the Joint Secretary, Urban Department to him.
Subsequently, on 19.1.2009, a letter was written to
Minister for Urban Development and Municipal Affairs by E
the said allottee by stating that after going through the
norms of 'ICSE' he felt that allotment of a bigger plot was
needed for getting affiliation and a prayer was made for
allotment of another bigger plot. In this letter, the allottee
stated that he 'would like to surrerider' the plot already F
allotted to him and would at the same time 'apply for a
plot of a bigger area'. This the allottee said he was
seeking to do in order to comply with the norms of ICSE.
By a communication dated 17.2.2009, issued from
the Urban Development Department, the -allottee was G
Informed about allotment of a different plot, of a much
bigger size, and in a different area, which was challenged
by public interest litigants before the High Court in several
writ petitions on various grounds. ·
H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.
A The first ground of challenge was that there was no
advertisement for allotment of the subsequent plot being
plot No. CA-222, which is much bigger than the initial plot.
and allotment of this different and bigger plot, without any
advertisement by the Government, only on the prayer of
B the allottee was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. The second ground of
challenge was that even though the impugned allotment
was made on 17.2.2009 "subject to execution of
registration of deed of surrender," the possession of the
c plot was made over to the allottee on 30.4.2009 while a
draft deed of surrender was sent by the State
Government to the allottee and was signed by the allottee
on 5.3.2009 but the same was not presented for
registration and the same was registered only after filing
of the petition before the High Court. The complaint 9f the
0
petitioner was that the plot was surrendered only after the
writ petition was admitted by the High Court and direction
for filing of affidavit was given.
The third ground of challenge wa.s that when the
E allottee initially applied and was allotted the previous plot,
the norms of ICSE affiliation were already notified and the
allottee claiming to set up a school for ICSE affiliation
must be aware of those norms. The fourth ground was
that the claim of the allottee for complying with the ICSE
F norm was just a specious plea, in fact the Trust which the
allottee had set up for the school did not at all comply
with the ICSE norms. The fifth ground was that in allotting
the subsequent plot, to the allottee, the authorities flouted
the working plan available for Salt Lake City in the
G absence of a master plan.
The High Court upheld the allotment of plot of land
being plot no. CA-222. Hence the present appeals.
Altowing the appeals, the Court
H HELD:1.The allotment of plot no. CA-222 in favour of
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 657
AND ORS.
the allottee cannot be sustained. [Para 23] [669-8] A
2.1. When the Government decided to allot a
substantial plot for setting up of a school by private
organizations and when on the basis of an advertisement
to that effect various organizations responded, the
action of the Government was one of granting largesse 8
in as much as land of which the Government is owner
and which was allotted is a very scarce and ·valuable
property. In the matter of granting largesse, Government
has to act fairly and without even any semblance of
discrimination. [Paras 24, 25) [669-C-E] C
2.2. Even the allottee in his letter dated 19.1.2009
made it clear that he was applying for a plot of bigger area
after surrendering the previous plot. The sequence
suggested in the allottee's letter is that he would 0
surrender the already allotted land and at the same time
apply for a plot of bigger area. Therefore, the request of
the allottee is to give another plot of land. Pursuant to
such request of the allottee, another· plot of land was
allotted to him with exemplary speed by the Government, E
within a month. The request was made by the allottee for
a bigger plot of land on 19.1.2009 to the Minister of Urban
Development and Municipal Affairs and from the said
dP ;;iartment a communication was sent to the allottee on
17.2.2009, to the effect that after considering the request
of the allottee, the Government was pleased to cancel its F
previous order of allotment and in lieu thereof was
allotting a new plot of land being no. CA-222 measuring
62 kathas (which is actually 63.04 kathas). [Para 30] [671-
8-E]
G
2.3. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued and no
offer was sought to be obtained from the members of the
public in respect of the new allotment of a much bigger
plot. The impugned allotment is clearly in breach of the
principles of Article 14 of the Constitution. This court H
658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. •
A cannot persuade itself to hold that this allotment is in
exercise of the right of the Government in the first
advertisement dated 5.11.2006, where the Government
reserved its right to change the location of the land. The
second allotment is not only about a change in the
B location of the land, but the subsequent allotment is also
of a much larger plot of land, brought about in terms of
the request of the allottee for a bigger plot. The
subsequent change was not brought about by the
Government in its own discretion, assuming but not
c admitting that the Government could exercise Its
discretion in such a fashion but was in response to a
written request of the allottee. [Paras 31, 32] [671-F-H;
672-A]
2.4. The Government was so anxious to oblige the
D allottee by giving bigger plot that too with no loss of time,
the said allotment was made by the Government
admittedly without verifying whether the allottee had
surrendered the previous plot allotted to him. From the
facts disclosed, it is clear that such surrender took place
E much later on 17.12.2009, when the allottee sent a
forwarding letter the registered deed of surrender in
respect of the previous plot no. BF-158. The Government
made allotment of the new plot to the allottee on terms
which were even more generous than the ones
F suggested by the allottee in his letter dated 19.1.2009.
Such action of the Government definitely smacks of
arbitrariness and falls foul Qf Article 14. [Paras 33, 34] [672-
B-D, G]
2.5. As regards the third ground of challenge about
G compliance with ICSE norms, the ICSE norms were in
place as early as 28.4.2006 and those norms have been
disclosed by the counter-affidavit filed by the allottee
before this court in the SLP filed by C.A. Block Citizens'
Association. Therefore, much before the application was
H made by the allottee on 17.11.2006, those norms were
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 659
AND ORS.
available on record. Even then he applied for a plot of 50 A
kathas of land in terms of the advertisement dated
5.11.2006 issued by the State Government. [Para 36) [673·
B-C]
2.6. As regards the fourth ground of challenge,
according to clause 2 of the ICSE norms, the school B
should be run by a Registered Society/Trust or a
Company (under section 25(1)(a) of the Companies Act,
1986) for educational purposes. It must not be run for
profit. The constitution of the Society/Trust/Company
running the school should be such that it does not vest C
control in a single individual or members of the same
family. But in the Instant case, the Society set up by 'SG'
and registered for running the proposed school under the
name of 'Ganguly Education and Welfare Society'
consists of 7 members, out of which 5 are all in the family o
and stay in the same address. The sixth member is also
a relation of the family and only the seventh member, the
Chartered Accountant, is outside the family. Therefore,
constitution of such a Trust to run the school is clearly
against the ICSE norms. [Paras 37, 38, 39, 40) [673-C-H; E
674-A·B]
2.7. The allottee is selectively seeking compliance of
the ICSE norms only in asking for a bigger plot. In so far
as other norms are concerned, they are clearly flouted as
seen in the constitution of the Trust set up to run the F
school. Hence, the argument on behalf of the appellant
that the plea of the allottee to ask for a bigger plot in the
name of complying with ICSE norms is not a bona fide
plea is of some substance. The allottee has not been able
to meet the said argument as to how the ICSE norms are G
complied with if the school is to be run by such a Trust,
which consists of members of the family and this court
finds that there is a lot of substance in this argument of
the appellants. This point was also urged before the High
Court but unfortunately the High Court brushed aside H
this objection. [Para 41) [674-C-E)
660 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R. •
A 2.8. A challenge to the legality of an order of allotment
of land by the Government must be decided by the Court
on the basis of material available when the High Court is
examining the challenge. The High Court cannot refuse
to examine the challenge on the basis of what may
B happen in future. By doing so, High Court refused to
exercise a jurisdiction which is vested in it. [Para 42] (674-
H; 675-A]
2.9. In connection with the fifth ground of challenge,
a map was produced before this Court by the appellant,
C which is a working map in the absence of a master plan
for sector-I of Salt Lake area, dated 2.9.2004. In that map,
the plot CA-222 is marked as one meant for a college yet
the same has been given to the allottee for establishing
an ICSE school. The appellant submits that such
o allotment is clearly in violation of the aforesaid plan. The
State has not been able to refute the aforesaid contention
of the appellant. However, it has been repeatedly urged,
both by the State and also that of the allottee that both
the State Government and the allottee had bona fide
E intentions of establishing a school. Therefore, the court
in public interest should uphold allotment and allow the
school to be set up and should refrain from interfering
in public interest. This court is unable to accept the
aforesaid contention. [Paras 43, 44, 45] [675-B-E]
F 2.10. It is axiomatic that in order to achieve a bona
fide end, the means must also justify the end. Bona fide
ends cannot be. achieved by questionable means,
specially when the State is involved. This court has not
been able to get any answer from the State why on a
G request by the allottee to the Hon'ble Minister for Urban
Development, the Government granted the allotment with
remarkable speed and without considering all aspects of
the matter. This court does not find any legitimacy in the
action of the Government, which has to act within the
H discipline of the constitutional law. In making the
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 661
AND ORS.
Impugned allotment In favour of the allottee, In the facts A
and circumstances of the case, the State has falled to
discharge its constitutional role. The High Court fell Into
an error by holding that by allotting plot no. CA-222
without open advertisement and public offer the
Government action is not Illegal or arbitrary. [Paras 46, 47] a
[675-F-H; 676-A, F]
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. lntemational Airport Authority
of India and Others 1979 (3) SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014;
Mis Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir & Another 1980 (4) SCC 1: 1980 (3) SCR 1338; C
Akhil Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others JT 2011 (4) SC 311: 2011 (5) SCC 29 -
referred to.
T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of Kamataka &
Others 2002 (8) sec 481: 2002 (3) suppl. SCR 587 - D
referred to.
"The New Property" (73 Yale Law Journal 733 -
referred to.
3.1. It is very surprising that the High Court, in the E
impugned judgment, recorded a finding that the allottee
was informed by ICSE that for obtaining affiliation for
integrated educational institution, land should not be less
than 60 kathas. This court fails to understand the basis
on which the Division Bench came to such a conclusion. F
The letter of the allottee dated 19.1.2009 does not even
whisper that he was informed of any objection by ICSE.
The letter proceeds on a totally different basis. The letter
states that after going through the norms of ICSE, it was
the allottee's own understanding that a plot of more than G
60 kathas is necessary to take the school project forward.
Therefore, the High Court's recording of fact, that the
allottee was 'infQrmed' by the ICSE of any objection, Is
not substantiated by any material on record. This Is a
H
662 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. •
A grave error on the part of the High Court. [Para 49) [677-
B-D]
3.2. Apart from that, once the Government has
initiated the process of advertisement, it cannot jettison
the same and allot a new plot to the allottee without any
B advertisement. This action of the Government is certainly
arbitrary and violates the principles of Article 14. [Para 50)
[677-E-F]
Sachidanand Pandey & another v. State of West Bengal
c & others (1987) 2 SCC 295: 1987 (2) SCR 223 and Mis
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
& Another 1980 (4) SCC 1: 1980 (3) SCR 1338 -
distinguished.
4. The allottee may be a well-known sportsman but
D does not claim any expertise as an educationist. Here
within a month of the application made by the allottee, the
allotment was made in a hot haste and without disclosure
by the State of any detailed consh.leration. In the instant
case, the impugned allotment of a different and bigger plot
E by the government in favour of the allottee without any
advertisement, when initially advertisement was resorted
to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed
through in hot haste, is unreasonable and arbitrary, and
the High Court was wrong in upholding the same. [Para
F 51, 53) (678-A-B; 678-E]
5. The order of allotment of plot no. CA-222, Sector-
V, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar),Kolkata made in favour of
Mr.Sourav Ganguly,the allottee,is quashed. In
consequence thereof, the lease deed dated 1.4.09,
G pursuant to such allotment stands quashed. The allottee
must, within two weeks from date, handover the peaceful
and vacant possession of plot No. CA-222 measuring
63.04 Kathas in Sector-V, Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar),
Kolkata to the concerned department of the State
H Government. Within two weeks thereafter the State
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 663
AND ORS.
Government must refund to the allottee, by a Cheque, the A
entire money paid by him for such a.llotment. [Para 55]
[678-H; 679-A-B]
Case Law Reference:
1979 (3) SCR 1014 relied on Para 25, 27, B
31, 46
1980 (3) SCR 1338 relied on Para 27, 31
1980 (3) SCR 1338 distinguished Para 46,48,
52
2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to Para 28 c
2011 (5) sec 29 relied on Para 46
1987 (2) SCR 223 distinguished Para 48, 51
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4782 of 2011. D
From the Judgment & Order dated 12.4.2010 of the High
Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 17090 of 2009.
WITH
E
C.A. Nos. 4783 & 4784 of 2011.
Deba Prasad Mukherjee, Arunangshu Chakraborty
{Petitioner-In-Person), Anindya Lahiri, Partha Sil fo1 the
Appellants.
K.K. Venugopal, Ranjit Kumar, Jayanta Mitra, A. F
Subhashini, Sumit Talukdar, Manoj, P. Sinha, Aparna Sinha,
Abhijat P. Medh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted in all the special leave G
petitions.
2. Several writ petitions were filed in public interest before
the Calcutta High Court challenging the allotment of land given
in favour of Mr. Sourav Ganguly {hereinafter referred to as H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R. •
A allottee), by the State of West Bengal. The High Court, by its
judgment dated 12.4.2010, upheld the allotment of plot of land
being plot no. CA-222 by allotment letter dated 17.2.2009. It
disposed of all the petitions by a direction that in order to retain
leasehold rights and possession of the said plot in Sector-V,
B Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata, the allottee has to pay
the State Government a sum of Rs.43,25,500/-, failing which
the lease deed dated 1.4.2009 shall be treated as invalid an~
possession of the land shall be handed back to the State
Government.
C :3. Challenging the said judgment of the Division Bench,
three SLP's (11783/2011, 22503/2010 and 22305/2010) were
filed before this Court and as the judgment is one, and the facts
and questions are identical, the cases were heard together and
are being decided by this judgment.
D 4. The material facts of the case are that on 5.11.2006,
an advertisement was issued by the Government c5f West
Bengal, Urban Development Department, earmarking a plot of
land measuring about 50 kathas in Pict No. BF-158 in Sector-
1, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar), Kolkata- 700064, for the setting up
E of an integrated school from primary level to higher secondary
level. It was stated in the advertisement that the school would
basically be academic in nature, but with extra-curricular
activities, which would form an integral part of the curriculum
and it was stated that the intending Organization/Institution/
F Body/Registered Society/ Trust which were capable of running
· and managing such a school by their own resources, may apply
to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Government of West Bengal, Nagarayan, DF-8, Sector-1,
Bidhannagar, Kolkata- 700064 on plain paper within 15 days
G from the publication of the advertisement giving details of the
project. It was intimated that the aforesaid plot of land would
be leased to the aforesaid applicants for 999 years on certain
terms indicated in the advertisement.
5. One of the terms in the said advertisement, to which
H some reference shall be made later on, is as follows:
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 665
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
"The government, however, reserves the right to change A
the location of the land and revise the rate of salami at its
full discretion. Such decision shall be final."
6. The allottee applied on 17 .11.2006. In the said
application, the allottee inter alia stated: 8
"There is ever increasing demand for such institutions,
especially in the northern and eastern part of the
metropolitan city of Ko!kata. The object of the proposed
educational institution would be academic excellence with
a balanced blend of co-curricular activities and sports for C
the all round growth of the younger generation .. .ln this
context, I propose to keep a few seats reserved for such
needy cum meritorious pupils."
7. In the project report submitted by the allottee, it was D
stated that the school would be owned by a Registered Society/
Trust. A Committee consisting of several Government officials
considered about 20 applications, filed pursuant to the
aforesaid advertisement. The Committee consisted of:
a. Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal E
b. Principal Secretary/ Secretary to Chief Minister
c. Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Urban Development
Department F
d. Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Information and
Cultural Affairs Department
e. Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Cottage and Small-
Scale Industries Department G
f. Principal Secretary/ Secretary, Commerce and
Industries Department
g. Managing Director, West Bengal Industries
Development Corporation H
666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20111 a s.c~R.
•
A · 8. Surprisingly nobody from the Education Department
was~/n the Committee.
9. Thereafter, by resolution dated 10.1.2007, the aforesaid
Committee selected the allottee and an allotment order dated
22.02.2007 in respect of plot no. BF-158 was issued by the
8
Joint Secretary, Urban Department to the allottee. Thereupon,
a lease deed was executed between the Government and the
allottee on 29.10.2007 and possession of the said plot was
given on 14.2.2008.
C 10. It may be noted that the aforesaid selection of the
allottee in respect of plot No.BF-158 was not challenged and
is not the subject matter of dispute in these proceedings.
11. Thereafter, on 19.1.2009, a letter was written to Sri
D Ashoka Bhattacharya, Minister for Urban Development and
Municipal Affairs by the allottee by stating that after going
through the norms of 'ICSE' he felt that allotment of a bigger
plot was needed for getting affiliation and a prayer was made
for allotment of another bigger plot.
E 12. Since the prayer made in this letter and its
consideration by the Government is vitally important for the
decision in this case, the letter is set out below:
"At present I am the owner of Plot No. 158, Block-BF in
F Salt Lake, Sector-I of 48 Kathas of land which was given
to me for the purpose of building a school. But after going
through the norms of ICSE to get an affiliation, we now
need a plot of more than 60 kathas (1 acre). So I would
like to surrender this allotted land to you and at the same
time apply for a plot of a bigger area so that I can take
the school project forward."
(Underlined by Court)
13. It may be noled that in this letter, the allottee stated that
H he 'would like to surrender' the plot already allotted to him and
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 667
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
would at the same time 'apply for a plot of a bigger area'. Th.is A
the allottee was seeking to do in order to comply with the norms
of ICSE.
1
14. Within a month thereafter, by a communication dated
'17.2.2009, issued from the Urban Development Department,
B
the allottee was informed about allotment of another plot- No.
CA-222 in Sector-I measuring 62 kathas (it is actually 63.04
kathas). This allotment of a different plot. which is of much bigger
size, in a different area, was challenged before the High Court
and before this Court on various grounds.
c
15. The first ground of challenge was that there was no
advertisement for allotment of the subsequent plot being plot
No. CA-222, which is much bigger than the initial plot and
allotment of this different and bigger plot, without any
advertisement by the Government, only on the prayer of the D
allottee is arbitrary, discrjminatory and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
16. The second ground of challenge is that even though
the impugned allotment was made on 17.2.2009 "subject to E
execution of registration of deed of surrender," the lease deed
pursuant to such allotment was executed on 01.04.2009 and
the same was presented for registration on 3.4.2009 and.was
registered on 6.4.2009. The possession of the plot was made
over to the allottee on 30.4.2009. A draft deed of surrender was
sent by the State Government to the allottee and was signed F
by the allottee on 5.3.2009 but the same was not presented for
registration and the same was registered only after filing of the
petition before the High Court. The complaint of the petitioner
is that the plot was surrendered only after the writ petition was
admitted by the High Court and direction for filing of affidavit G
was given.
17. The third ground of challenge was that when the allottee
initially applied and was allotted the previous plot, the norms
of ICSE affiliation were already notified and the allottee H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.
••
A claiming to set up a school for ICSE affiliation must be aware
of those norms.
18. The fourth ground was that the claim of the allottee for
complying with the ICSE norm is just a specious plea, in fact
the Trust which the allottee has set up for the school does not
8
at all comply with the ICSE norms.
19. The fifth ground was that in allotting the subsequent
plot, to the allottee, the authorities have flouted the working plan
which is available for Salt Lake City in the absence of a master
C plan.
20. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted before this Court that there was nothing illegal in the
Government's accepting the subsequent offer of the allottee
0 and in doing so the Government acted in terms of the original
advertisement where it had reserved its right to alter the original
location of the allotted plot. Learned counsel for the State
submitted that the subsequent plot which has been allotted to
the allottee cannot be called allotment of a new plot and no fresh
E advertisement for the same is necessary and relied on the
impugned judgment in which High Court entered a similar
finding. It was also submitted that the initial allotment made in
favour of the allottee was examined by a high-powered
Committee and after examining everything allotment was made
F and there is no illegality in the entire transaction.
21. Learned counsel for the allottee submitted that the bona
fide of the allottee must be looked into and considered by this
court and the project is for a public purpose of setting up a good
school in the area which is very much in need of the same. No
G challenge has been made to the allotment of the subsequent
plot in favour of the allottee by any educational institution or by
those who applied for the first allotment. The challenge by the
public interest litigants should not be entertained by this court
when the setting up of the school itself was in public interest. It
H is further urged that the subsequent allotment does not require
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 669
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
a fresh advertisement. A
22. The other grounds of challenge pointed out by the
appellants, according to the counsel of the allottee, are
inconsequential and may not be considered by this court in view
of the overwhelming public interest in the setting up of a school.
B
23. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions, this court
is inclined to hold that the allotment of plot no. CA-222 in favour
of the allottee cannot be sustained for the reasons discussed
hereunder.
c
24. When the Government decided to allot a substantial
plot for setting up of a school by private organizations and when
on the basis of an advertisement to that effect various
organizations responded, the action of the Government was one
of granting largesse in as much as land of which the
D
Government is owner and which was allotted is a very scarce
and valuable property.
25. It has been repeatedly held by this court that in the
matter of granting largesse, Government has to act fairly and
without even any semblance of discrimination. Law on this E
subject has been very clearly laid down by this court in the case
of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority
of India and Others reported in 1979 (3) SCC 489. A three-
Judge Bench in the said decision has recognized that the
Government, in a welfare State, is in a position of distributing F
largesse in a large measure and in doing so the Government
cannot act at its pleasure. This court perusing the new
jurisprudential theory of Professor Reich in his article on the
"The New Property" (73 Yale Law Journal 733) accepted the
following dictum contained therein: G
"The government action be based on standards that are
not arbitrary and unauthorized.•
26. This court explained the purport of the aforesaid
formulation by holding: H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R.
•
A "The government cannot be permitted to say that it will give
jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licenses only
in favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a
particular political party or professing a particular religious
faith. The government is still the government when it acts
8 in the matter of granting largesse and it cannot act
arbitrarily. It does not stand in the same position as a
private individual."
(Para 11, page 505 of the report)
C 27. The aforesaid dictum in Ramana (supra) is still
followed by this court as the correct exposition of law and has
been subsequently followed in many other decisions. In Mis
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
& Another reported in 1980 (4) SCC 1, another three-Judge
o Bench relied on the dictum in Ramana (supra) and held
whenever any governmental action fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness and public interest, it is liable to be struck down
as invalid. This court held that a necessary corollary of this
proposition is that the Government cannot act in a manner which
E would benefit a private party. Such an action will be contrary to
public interest. (See para 14, p. 13 of the report)
28. The setting up of a private school may have some
elements of public interest in it but Constitution Bench of this
court has held in T. M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
F Kamataka & Others reported in 2002 (8) SCC 481, that the
right of a citizen, which is not claiming minority rights to set up
a private educational institution is part of its fundamental right
to carry on an occupation under Article 19(1 )(g). Such i
enterprise may not be a totally business enterprise but profit 1.
G motive cannot be ruled out.
29. In view of the aforesaid legal principle, the question is
whether the impugned order of the Government vide allotment
letter dated 17.2.2009 allotting a plot of 63.04 kathas of land
H in a prime area in Salt Lake City is an allotment which is different
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 671
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
than the previous allotment of 50 kathas which was made to A
the allottee in Plot No. BF-158.
30. The answer is obvious from the admitted facts of the
case. Even the allottee in his letter dated 19.1.2009 praying for
such allotment, made it clear that he was applying for a plot of 8
bigger area after surrendering the previous plot. The sequence
suggested in the allottee's letter is that he would surrender the
already allotted land and at the same time apply for a plot of
bigger area. Therefore, the request of the allottee is to give
another plot of land. Pursuant to such request of the allottee, C
another plot of land was allotted to him with exemplary speed
by the Government, within a month, if we go by the normal pace
in governmental transactions. The request was made by the
allottee for a bigger plot of land on 19.1.2009 to Mr. Ashok
Bhattacharya, Minister of Urban Development and Municipal
Affairs and from the said department a communication was D
sent to the allottee on 17.2.2009, to the effect that after
considering the request of the allottee, the Government was
pleased to cancel its previous order of allotment and in lieu
thereof was allotting a new plot of land being no. CA-222
measuring 62 kathas (which is actually 63.04 kathas). E
31. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued and no offer
was sought to be obtained from the members of the public in
respect of the new allotment of a much bigger plot. In view of
the principles laid down by this court, the impugned allotment F
is clearly in breach of the principles of Article 14 explained by
this court in Ramana (supra), Kasturi Lal (supra) and other
subsequent cases.
32. This court cannot persuade itself to hold that this
allotment is in exercise of the right of the Government in the first G
advertisement dated 5.11.2006, where the Government
reserved its right to change the location of the land. The second
allotment is not only about a change in the location of the land,
but the subsequent allotment is also of a much larger plot of
land, brought about in terms of the request of the allottee for a H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R
•
A bigger plot. The subsequent change was not brought about by
the Government in its own discretion, assuming but not
admitting that the Government could exercise its discretion in
such a fashion but was in response to a written request of the
allottee.
B
33. The Government was so anxious to oblige the allottee
by giving bigger plot that too with no loss of time, the said
allotment was made by the Government admittedly without
verifying whether the allottee had surrendered the previous plot
C allotted to him. From the facts which have been disclosed here,
it is clear that such surrender took place much later on
17.12.2009, when the allottee sent a forwarding letter the
registered deed of surrender in respect of the previous plot no.
BF-158. The letter of the allottee dated 16.12.2009 would show
the following:
D
"Though I have executed the Deed of Surrender and made
over the same to you but the formality of having the same
registered could not be completed by me due to oversight
which was mainly because of my busy schedule and
E constant travel. I understand that the said Deed cannot be
registered now for lapse of time unless extended by the
State.
I shall be highly grateful if you could kindly arrange to have
the said period extended or allow me to register a fresh
F deed of surrender at the earliest."
34. It is, therefore, clear that the Government made
allotment of the new plot to the allottee on terms which were
even more generous than the ones suggested by the allottee
G in his letter dated 19.1.2009. Such action of the Government
definitely smacks of arbitrariness and falls foul of Article 14.
35. This factual aspect of the matter discussed in detail
under the second ground of challenge was not disputed before
H us by either the learned counsel for the Government or the
• HUMANITY AND ANR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 673
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
learned counsel for the allottee. A
36. On the third ground of challenge about compliance with
ICSE norms, we find that the ICSE norms were in place as early
as 28.4.2006 and those norms have been disclosed by the
counter-affidavit filed by the allottee before this court in the SLP B
filed by C.A. Block Citizens' Association. Therefore, much
before the application was made by the allottee on 17.11.2006,
those norms were available on record. Even then he applied
for a plot of 50 kathas of land in terms of the advertisement
dated 5.11.2006 issued by the State Government.
c
37. On the fourth ground of challenge, we find that
according to clause 2 of the ICSE norms, the school should be
run by a Registered Societyffrust or a Company (under section
25(1 )(a) of the Companies Act, 1986) for educational purposes.
It must not be run for profit. D
38. The constitution of the Societyffrust/Company running
the school should be such that it does not vest control in a single
individual or members of the same family.
39. But in the instant case, a Society which has been E
registered for running the proposed school under the name of
'Ganguly Education and Welfare Society' consists of the
following members:
a. Sourav GangtJly F
b. Dona Ganguly
c. Snehasish Ganguly
d. Chandidas Ganguly G
e. Nirupa Ganguly
f. Arup Chatterjee
g. Deepak Kumar Mitra H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011} 8 S.C.R. •
A 40. Of these names, the first 5 are all in the family and stay
in the same address at 2-6, Biren Roy Road (E), Barisha,
Kolkata. Mr. Arup Chatterjee is also a relation of the family
staying in Brahma Samaj Road and only Mr. Deepak Kumar
Mitra, the Chartered Accountant, is outside the family.
B Therefore, constitution of such a Trust to run the school is clearly
against the ICSE norms.
41. It is thus clear that the allottee is selectively seeking
compliance of the ICSE norms only in asking for a bigger plot.
In so far as other norms are concerned, they are clearly flouted
C as seen in the constitution of the Trust set up to run the school.
Hence, the argument on behalf of the appellant that the plea of
the allottee to ask for a bigger plot in the name of complying
with ICSE norms is not a bona fide plea is of some substance.
The learned counsel for the allottee has not been able to meet
D the said argument as to how the ICSE norms are complied with
if the school is to be run by such a Trust, which consists of
members of the family and this court finds that there is a lot of
substance in this argument of the appellants. This point was
also urged before the High Court but unfortunately the High
E Court brushed aside this objection, if we may say so with
respect, by a very strange logic by observing:
"We are not required to consider this aspect of the matter
because it will be for the governing body of the ICSE to
F examine the application which may be made for
recognition/affiliation of the school which is yet to be
established and construction yet to be made. As and when
any application will be made for such recognition/affiliation,
the concerned authority/body will consider the application
and it is not for this court to speculate at this stage as to
G
what would be the composition of the organization/body/
society which will apply to Council for ICSE for recognition/
affiliation of the integrated school."
42. This Court is of the view that a challenge to the legality
H of an order of allotment of land by the Government must be
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 675
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
decided by the Court on the basis of material available when A
the High Court is examining the challenge. The High Court
cannot refuse to examine the challenge on the basis of what
may happen in future. By doing so, High Court refused to
exercise a jurisdiction which is vested in it.
B
43. In connection with the fifth ground of challenge, a map
was produced before us by the learned counsel for the
appellant, which is a working map in the absence of a master
plan for sector-I of Salt Lake area, dated 2.9.2004. In that map,
the plot CA-222 is marked as one meant for a college yet the
same has been given to the allottee for establishing an ICSE C
school. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that such
allotment is clearly in violation of the aforesaid plan. The learned
counsel for the State has not been able to refute the aforesaid
contention of the appellant.
D
44. However, it has been repeatedly urged, both by the
learned counsel for the State and also that of the allottee that
both the State Government and the allottee had bona fide
intentions of establishing a school. Therefore, the court in public
interest should uphold allotment and allow the school to be set E
up and should refrain from interfering in public interest.
45. This court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention.
46. It is axiomatic that in order to achieve a bona fide end,
the means must also justify the end. This court is of the opinion F
that bona fide ends cannot be achieved by questionable means,
specially when the St::ite is involved. This court has not been
able to get any answer from the State why on a request by the
allottee to the Hon'ble Minister for Urban Development, the
Government granted the allotment with remarkable speed and G
without considering all aspects of the matter. This court does
not find any legitimacy in the action of the Government, which
has to act within the discipline of the constitutional law,
explained by this Court in a catena of cases. We are sorry to
hold that in making the impugned allotment in favour of the H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 8 S.C.R.
A allottee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State
has failed to discharge its constitutional role. Recently this Court
relying on Ramana (supra), Kasturi Lal (supra) and various
other judgments summed up the legal position in Akhi/
Bharatiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh
e and others reported in JT 2011 (4) SC 311. The relevant
extracts from paragraph 31 (page 336 of the report) are
excerpted below:-
•... Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/
instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be
c founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well
defined policy, which shall be made known to the public
by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognized
modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/
executed by adopting a non-discriminatory or non-arbitrary
D method irrespective of the class or category of persons
proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of
largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit
licence etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities
should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and
E the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence
the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the
particular functionary or officer of the State."
47. The Division Bench of the High Court, with respect, fell
F into an error by holding that by allotting plot no. CA-222 without
open advertisement and public offer the Government action is
not illegal or arbitrary.
48. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench
.... relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the
\.:J cases of Sachidanand Pandey & another v. State of West
Bengal & others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 295 and Kasturi
Lal (supra). This Court however finds that those two cases
stand on completely different footing.
-f 49. First of all, in the instant case, the Government initially
•HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 677
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
issued advertisement for allotment of land for setting up of a A
school and to which the allottee responded. Thereafter, a
Committee considered all the applications and decided to allot
the land in favour of the allottee. The matter rested there. Then
came the letter of the allottee dated 19.1.2009, which has been
set out above. It is very surprising that the Division Bench of B
Calcutta High Court, in paragraph 5 (page 6) and paragraph
21 (page 18) of the impugned judgment, recorded a finding that
the allottee was informed by ICSE that for obtaining affiliation
for integrated educational institution, land should not be less than
60 kathas. This court fails to understand the basis on which the c
Division Bench came to such a conclusion. The letter of the
allottee dated 19.1.2009 does not even whisper that he was
informed of any objection by ICSE. The letter proceeds on a
totally different basis. The letter states that after going through
the norms of ICSE, it was the allottee's own understanding that 0
a plot of more than 60 kathas is necessary to take the school
project forward. Therefore, the High Court's recording of fact,
that the allottee was 'informed' by the ICSE of any objection,
is not substantiated by any material on record. This is a grave
error on the part of the High Court.
E
50. Apart from that, once the Government has initiated the
process of advertisement, it cannot jettison the same and allot
a new plot to the allottee without any advertisement. This action
of the Government is certainly arbitrary and violates the
principles of Article 14. F
51. Neither in Sachidanand Pandey (supra) nor in Kasturi
Lal (supra), any process of advertisement was ever initiated.
In Sachidanand Pandey (supra), the main questions raised
were issues of ecology and environment. In that case, the court G
dealt with the question of issuing public auction by explaining
that there were direct negotiations with those who came
forward to set up five star hotels, to promote the tourism industry
in the State. Detailed considerations at different levels
proceeded for a very long time before the Taj group of hotels, H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2011) 8 S.C.R. •
A with sufficient experience in the hotel industry, was selected. In
the Instant case, the allottee may be a wall-known sportsman
but does not claim any expertise as an educatlonist. Here within
a month of the application made by the allottee, the allotment
was made in a hot haste and without disclosure by the State
B of any detailed consideration. Thus, the present case stand
poles apart from the facts in Sachidanand Pandey (supra).
52. In Kasturi Lal (supra) also, the Govemmenrs policy was
to set up industries in Jammu and Kashmir, which was not
C industrially developed and thus entrepreneurs, within the State,
were offered encouraging terms for setting up industry.
Therefore, in such a situation the State took a policy decision
not to invite a tender or go in for advertisement for inviting
industrialists from outside the State. It may be noted that at no
stage, advertisement was thought of by the State in Kasturi Lal
D. (supra).
53. In the instant case, the impugned allotment of a different
and bigger plot by the government in favour of the allottee
without any advertisement, when initially advertisement was
E resorted to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed
through in hot haste, is unreasonable and arbitrary, and the
High Court was wrong in upholding the same.
54. Before I conclude, I make it clear that I am aware that
F the allottee is a cricketer of great repute and has led this
country to victory in many tournaments, both in India and
abroad. I have watched him on the television on many
occasions and was delighted to see his glorious cover drives
and effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I
have different duties to discharge. Here I must be objective and
G eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause
which has come before the Court.
55. For the reasons aforesaid,the order of allotment of plot
no. CA-222, Sector-V, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar),Kolkata made
H in favour of Mr.Sourav Ganguly,the allottee,is quashed. In
• HUMANITY AND ANR. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL 679
AND ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
consequence thereof, the lease deed dated 1.4.09, pursuant A
to such allotment stands quashed. The allottee must, within two
weeks from date, handover the peaceful and vacant possession
of plot No. CA·222 measuring 63.04 Kathas In Sector·V, Salt
Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata to the concerned department
of the State Government. Within two weeks thereafter the State B
Government must refund to the allottee, by a Cheque, the entire
money paid by him for such allotment.
56. The appeals are allowed. The order of the High Court
is set aside. ·
c
57. No order as to costs.
B.B.B. Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Administrative law"Sign in to search