The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of lease and sub-lease agreements, particularly Clause 10 and Clause 23, and the court's assertion of jurisdiction despite the presence of arbitration clauses.

JUDGMENT

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. - The writ petitioners are unemployed youth. The scheme 'Karma Tirtha' was introduced by the Government of West Bengal to grant opportunity to such unemployed youth in different Districts to do business in order to mitigate their financial distress.

2. Funds were duly allocated by the Government to the Medinipur District Industrial Centre for development of shop rooms on Government land and 30 shops were constructed accordingly by the concerned Block Development Officer under the supervision of the District Industrial Centre, Paschim Medinipur. The petitioners were selected for being allotted shops.

3. Under the scheme, the General Manager, Paschim Medinipur District Industrial Centre (on behalf of the State Government) entered into an agreement of lease with the Narayangarh Karma Tirtha, a registered society formed for the purpose of looking after the stalls. The said society was to act as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to implement the scheme. The lease was in respect of the property where the shops-inquestion are housed.

4. On January 15, 2019, the said Samity executed sub-lease agreements with the petitioners, thereby allotting the shops to the latter. Possession of the shop-rooms/stalls were also handed over formally to the petitioners.

5. The petitioners invested the precious little money which they had on decorating and furnishing shop rooms, the inauguration of which was scheduled to be held on July 3, 2019. However, on July 2, 2019 several villagers assembled near the shops and locked all the shop rooms, thereby ousting the petitioners therefrom. Consequently, the inauguration of the said shop rooms never took place.

6. On July 16, 2019, the petitioners sent a letter to the Block Development Officer, highlighting the situation and requesting immediate steps to be taken to open the shop rooms by breaking the padlocks affixed by the miscreants, for the petitioners to use those. According to the petitioners, the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.) assured the petitioners that steps would be taken on their complaint after discussion with the General Manager, Paschim Medinipur District Industrial Centre.

7. However, on November 23, 2020, the General Manager, District Industrial Centre, Paschim Medinipur issued a notice to the Secretary, Narayangarh Karma Tirtha Pariseba Samabay Samity Ltd, cancelling the lease agreement in favour of the Samity. Consequently, the petitioners apprehended that their sub-leases would also stand terminated, due to no fault of their own. The lessee issued a reply to the notice dated November 23, 2020 indicating the prevailing situation at the campus of their shops and the reasons why those could not be operated by the sub-lessees.

8. However, the Additional District Magistrate (Panchayat), Paschim Medinipur (respondent no.4) floated a tender on December 4, 2020, inviting fresh applications for allotment of the shops/stalls which were already allocated to the petitioners.

9. The writ petition has been preferred, challenging the notice of termination dated November 23, 2020 and the notice inviting tender dated December 4, 2020.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in terms of Clause 10 of the agreement of lease dated December 10, 2018 between the Government of West Bengal and the SPV, the said agreement would come to cease in certain situations as stipulated therein. The clause further provides that if the said agreement for lease is so terminated, it will not prejudice the right of the users to whom the shops/stalls/space were allotted through sub-lease by the lessee during subsistence of the agreement and the sub-lease shall be deemed as it was executed by and between the superior lessor and the sub-lessees. In other words, even if the said lease agreement was cancelled, the State would step into the shoes of the lessee and become the lessor vis-a-vis the sub-lessees.

11. It is further argued that Clause 23 of the agreements of sub-lease execut