IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

And

The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

MAT 1186 of 2025

Shyamal Coomar Ghose

Vs.

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

With

FMA 1341 of 2025

Shyamal Coomar Ghose

[

Vs.

The Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Jayabrata Ghose, Adv.

Ms. Tina Biswas, Adv.

For the Respondents/ : Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Adv.

KMDA Mr. Arindam Chatterjee, Adv.

For the State : Mr. Subhabrata Das, Adv.

Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Adv.

Heard on : 25.08.2025 Judgment on : 03.09.2025

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.:-

1. The appeal at the behest of the petitioner is directed against the common judgment and order dated June 10, 2025 passed in WPA 15503 of 2024 and WPA 24492 of 2024. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petitions.

2. The writ petitioner was allotted a land on lease for the purpose of construction of residential building thereon within a period of five years from the date of execution of the lease deed. The writ petitioner applied for extension of time for the construction of residential building which was refused by the Deputy Secretary Estate (M & M) Unit, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA). Challenging such order passed by Deputy Secretary Estate (M & M) Unit, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) dated January 31, 2024, the writ petitioner filed WPA

15503 of 2024.

3. Later on, the writ petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated June 7, 2024 asking him to show cause as to why the lease deed executed in favour of the writ petitioner will not be cancelled and the land shall not be resumed by the authority. Challenging the aforesaid show- cause notice dated June 7, 2024, the writ petitioner filed another writ application being WPA 24492 of 2024. Both the writ petitions were taken up together for consideration by the learned Single Judge which has resulted in the impugned judgment and order.

4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the show-cause notice issued against the writ petitioner dated June 7, 2024 is contrary to law and without appreciation of the factual aspects.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submitted that the deed of lease was executed in his favour in 1989. It is the fact that the writ petitioner has not been able to construct the residential building as per the terms of the lease deed but at the same time the authorities also did not take steps in this regard for a long time. The action on the part of the State authorities in issuing a show-cause notice after a long time cannot be justified. It was contended that a non-statutory contract does not entitle the State authorities to ward off its scrutiny or inaction under the contract. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that such an action on the part of the State authorities is arbitrary.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellant also submitted that in matters related to contractual obligation, leave can be sought against the State instrumentalities when such authority is found to have acted in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the issuance of show-cause notice dated June 7, 2024 against the writ petitioner by the Deputy Secretary Estate (M & M) Unit, Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA) is wholly arbitrary action on the part of the authorities and, therefore, it is within the purview of judicial review.

7. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submits that the respondent authority being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the actions on the part of State authorities should be looked at from the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, indubitability and public interest. It is submitted that the show-cause notice was not issued in public interest rather it was abuse of power by the a