JUDGMENT :

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State and its functionaries challenging an order dated 29th January, 2014 passed in a writ petition, being W.P. No. 1046 (W) of 2006 preferred by a partnership firm, namely, M/s Carbin Box & Tube (hereinafter referred to as the said firm) and its two partners challenging an order dated 23rd December, 2005 passed by the appellant no.3 cancelling the allotment of a plot of land, measuring about 10 kathas in Salt Lake, for the purpose of a Textile Conemaking Unit, in favour of the said firm offered vide Government order dated 16th September, 1982.

2. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for the appellants argues that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 23rd December, 2005 on the basis of an erroneous observation that the only ground for cancellation was ‘dissolution of the partnership with the death of Sm. P.C. Ghosh with effect from 23rd May, 1990’ though the contents of the order dated 23rd December, 2005 would clearly reveal that cancellation of allotment was also on various other grounds as detailed in the said order.

3. According to him, the learned Single Judge did not consider the arguments as advanced on behalf of the appellants and disposed of the writ petition being oblivious of the facts that the said firm failed to submit the Provisional Small Scale Industries Registration Certificate, the Clearance Certificate from the Competent Authority for Air and Water pollution within the time as specified in Clause 14 of the letter of allotment dated 6th September, 1982. The premium amount was also not paid by the said firm within the time stipulated and no steps were taken for registering and for taking possession of the plot, as would be explicit from the contents of the letters issued by the said firm on 30th June, 2003, 19th September, 2003, 18th October, 2003 and 1st March, 2004.

4. Mr. Das submits that the records would reveal that three partnership deeds were executed dated 20th March, 1991, 17th October, 1992 and 24th April, 2004. The second and the third partnership deeds contained a clause to the effect that ‘this partnership agreement cancels and revokes any earlier partnership agreement’. From such sequence it would thus be explicit that the partnership firm which was granted the allotment in the year 1982 stood dissolved after the death of Kamal Ghosh. In support of such argument reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Loonkaran Sethiya and Ors. vs. Ivan E. John and Ors., reported in AIR 1977 SC 336 and in the case of Krishna Motor Service vs. H.B. Vittala Kamath, reported in AIR 1996 SC 2209.

5. He submits that it would be explicit from the contents of the letter of allotment dated 6th September, 1982 that the proposal for such allotment was for the purpose of a Textile Conemaking Unit. The letter dated 11th November, 2005 issued by the said firm would reveal that the said firm was interested to set up one Information Technology Infrastructure industry instead of the Textile Conemaking Unit. The said firm cannot insist for allotment of the plot for a purpose different from the purpose for which the proposal was granted.

6. Per contra, Ms. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondents/writ petitioners submits that there is no infirmity in the order impugned and as such no interference is called for in the present appeal. The sole ground for cancellation of allotment was that the partnership firm stood dissolved due to the death of one of the partners. Such ground towards cancellation of allotment is absolutely unfounded. A composite reading of the contents of the partnership agreements dated 20th March, 1991, 17th October, 1992 and 24th April, 2004 would reveal that there was no clause to the effect that death or retirement of the partner would lead to dissolution of the partnership firm. Therefore it cannot be contended by the appellants that by reason of