IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the discrimination against the petitioners, despite being situated on similar premise as others, was found to be palpable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT :

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The respondent no. 1, West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Limited, as the name suggests, is a Government of West Bengal undertaking which is engaged in the development of small industries in West Bengal and giving a fillip to small business.

2. The petitioner no. 1, on the other hand, is a partnership firm which has been reconstituted several times, old partners yielding place to the new, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 being its current partners. The petitioner no. 1 carries on a manufacturing unit of Sodium Sulfite which engages several employees and qualifies as a small industry. The petitioner no. 1 was initially a proprietorship and was allotted Shed No. 6/1 on July 6, 1984 to set up the business. On November 17, 1986, the proprietorship changed into a partnership firm. On December 16, 1986, another plot numbered as 1/1 was allotted to the petitioner no. 1. Subsequently, Plot Nos. 1/2 and 1/4A were also allotted to the firm. Due to the petitioner no. 1 not being granted consent to operate by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, its allotments regarding Plot Nos. 1/2 and 1/4A were cancelled, upon which the petitioners moved WPA No. 426 of 1997 wherein they obtained an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. A direction was given on the Pollution Control Board to inspect the premises and grant No Objection Certificate on fulfillment of requisites. The same having been done, the petitioners were given a hearing and the respondent no. 1 agreed to regularize the allotment of Plot Nos. 1/2 and 1/4A.

3. The petitioners argue that up to July 2014, their allotments continued and draft lease-deeds were prepared, which were also approved by the respondents. All on a sudden on August 1, 2014, the monthly rent for the plots were increased manifold as reflected from the bill raised at that juncture. The dispute as to enhancement of occupation charges persisted for a long time, leading to several writ petitions being filed by the petitioners at different points of time. Ultimately, the matter came up to this Court in WPO No. 2021 of 2022. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated June 23, 2023, observed, inter-alia, that the petitioners have continued to default with regard to payment of occupational charges and the allegations of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India was vague and without particulars.

4. It was also observed that the petitioners were given several opportunities to rectify the gaps in their dealings by way of execution of lease-deeds and in the payment of arrear rent but the petitioners stood resolute in their stand and failed to comply with their directions. Accordingly, WPO No. 2021 of 2022 was, thus, dismissed.

5. The said order was challenged in appeal. The Division Bench taking up the appeal bearing APO No. 96 of 2023 by its order dated January 15, 2024 recorded that the appellants had brought to the notice of the court that in case of M/s. Gravo Prints, another plot in the same industrial estate, that is, the Behala Industrial Estate was given the benefit of a similar Scheme although they were defaulters in payment of occupational charges as well. In the light of such observations, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal by directing the appellant to submit a representation to the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1, enclosing copies of the documents by which the benefit of the Special Scheme was granted to M/s. Gravo Prints. On receipt of the representation, the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 was directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the partners of the petitioner no. 1-firm and to pass a reasoned order.

6. Pursuant to the Division Bench order, by the impugned order dated February 8, 2024, the Managing Director of the respondent no. 1 considered and rejected the prayer of the petitioners, thereby refusing the petitioners the benefit under the Special Scheme. Being thus aggrieved, the petit