Full Judgment
ORDER
SHEET WP No.740 of 2009 -with WP No.1046 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE MODULAR STRUCTURALS PRIVATE LTD.Versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY Date : 6th March, 2014.
Appearance : Ms.Monju Agarwal, Advocate.
Mr.Bajrang Manot, Advocate.
Mr.Imran Ali, Advocate.
… for the petitioner Mr.Partha Sarathi Basu, Advocate.
Mr.S.Talukdar, Advocate.
Mr.Fazlul Haque, Advocate.
… for the KMd.Mr.Amitesh Banerjee, Advocate.
Mr.Biswajib Ghosh, Advocate.
… for the State.
The Court : The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 9th July, 2009 issued by the Special Secretary, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority ( hereinafter referred to as KMd.).Ms.Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that assailing an order dated 23rd/26th October, 2006, a writ application, being WP No.16922(W) of 2007, was preferred and the same was disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.5 herein to grant the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Pursuant to the said order dated 27th August, 2007, the respondent no.5 passed an order on 8th January, 2008.
Being dissatisfied with the said order of 8th January, 2008, the petitioner again approached this Court through an application, being WP No.232 of 2008, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the same was disposed of by the order dated 25th March, 2008.
The operative part of the said order dated 25th March, 2008 runs as follows : “For these reasons, ordering as follows.
2008 I dispose of the writ petition The impugned decision dated January 8, is hereby set aside.
The Special Secretary of the development authority is directed to give a fresh reasoned decision in compliance with the previous order of this Court.
The decision in terms of this order shall be given after giving the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.
There shall be no order for costs.” Ms.Agarwal further submits that subsequent to issuance of the said order of this Court passed on 25th March, 2008, the said respondent no.5 issued a memorandum dated 9th June, 2008 and being aggrieved by the said memorandum, the petitioner again approached this Court through a writ application, being WP No.1046 of 2008.
During pendency of the said writ application, being WP No.1046 of 2008, the said respondent no.5 passed an order dated 9th July, 2009.
Challenging the said order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by the said respondent no.5, the petitioner had preferred the instant writ application.
Ms.Agarwal submits that the said impugned order dated 9th July, 2009 was passed by the said respondent no.5 without grant of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without considering the documents pertaining to the petitioner’s claim.
Ms.Agarwal further submits that the said impugned order had not been passed in strict consonance with the earlier order dated 25th March, 2008 passed by this Court in WP No.232 of 2008.
Mr.Haque, learned Advocate appearing for the KMd.Authority, submits that necessary directions can be passed upon the said respondent no.5 to consider the petitioner’s claim afresh.
Mr.Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State-Respondents, submits that no relief had been claimed against the State Government and that as such, their impleadment needs to be expunged.
Upon appearing hearing for the the submissions respective parties of the and learned upon Advocates considering the materials on record, I am of the opinion that as the impugned order dated 9th July, 2009 had been passed by the respondent no.5 without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the said limited ground, the said impugned order needs to be set aside.
Accordingly, I set aside and quash the impugned order dated 9th July, 2009 passed by the said respondent no.5.
I further direct the said respondent no.5 to consider the petitioner’s claim afresh and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner’s representative and to communicate the said order to the petitioner.
The entire exercise should be completed by the said respondent no.5 within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.
I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s claim and all points are kept open to be considered by the respondent no.5.
Accordingly, the writ applications, being WP No.1046 of 2008 and WP No.740 of 2009, are disposed of.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
As no affidavit-in-opposition had been filed by the respondents, the allegations made in the writ application shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents.
Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.) rnc.