IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment established that the discretionary jurisdiction of the court may not be exercised in favor of those who approach the court after a long time, and that suppression of material facts by a litigant disqualifies them from obtaining any relief. It also emphasized that the policy decision of a statutory authority should not be interfered with by the court unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable.

JUDGMENT :

SUVRA GHOSH, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall, withdraw, terminate, cancel or rescind the memo dated 30th March, 2016 cancelling the allotment of the plot of land granted in his favour and to allow the petitioner to commence and complete the construction of the proposed building in the said plot.

2. The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the KMDA) allotted about 10 cottahs of land in plot no. I-11, sector-C within the East Kolkata Area Development Project @ Rs. 15,00,000/- lakhs per cottah amounting to a total of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- for setting up of health care related institute under the terms and conditions set out in the memo dated 23rd November, 2010. The entire consideration amount was paid by the petitioner and permissive possession in respect of the plot was granted in his favour by virtue of possession certificate issued on 4th May, 2012. Deed of lease was granted by the KMDA in favour of the petitioner on 27th July, 2012 for a period of 30 years from the date of delivery of possession of the plot with an option for renewal and other terms and conditions contained in the deed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner applied for mutation immediately after execution of the deed and the property was mutated in his favour on 1st July, 2013. The petitioner faced local resistance which delayed the work further. Building permit was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 17th July, 2015. The petitioner received a demand notice from the KMDA issued on 2nd June, 2015 requesting him to deposit a sum of Rs. 84,26,880/- as penal charges for the delay in construction and service tax thereon within 30 days from the date of issuance of the letter failing which the allotment would be deemed to be cancelled. By a letter issued on 5th January, 2016 the petitioner requested waiver of the penal charges imposed upon him and sought to commence the proposed construction shortly. By a letter issued on 30th March, 2016, the KMDA cancelled the lease deed and resumed the land in question. The petitioner, by a letter issued on 28th April, 2016, further requested the authority to allow him to commence the construction.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner is a charitable non profit organisation, the authority could not have imposed penalty upon the same or cancel the lease solely on the ground of non payment of penalty and not for violation of any of the covenants of the deed. The policy decision of the authority for imposition of penal charges with regard to delayed construction was not made known to the petitioner. No notice was served upon the petitioner in terms of clause 4.7 of the lease deed.

5. The delay in approaching the Court may also be condoned since no third party interest has been created in the plot in question by the authority in the meantime.

6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the authorities in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Another vs. Emta Coal Limited, (2022) 2 SCC 1, Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited vs. P.P. Suresh and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 710, Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353, H.D. Vora vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 866 and Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others vs. Dinabandhu Andrews Institute of Technology Management and Another, M.A.T. No. 839 of 2018 in C.A.N. No. 6085 of 2018 in support of his contention.

7. Speaking for the KMDA, learned counsel, at the outset, has challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on two fold grounds: - first, the cancellation of allotment was informed to the petitioner by a letter issued on 30th March, 2016. The writ petition has been filed on 5th May, 2022, the delay not being explained. Second, the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner was not granted an opp